7v^^j 


3,  /2./05 


Stom  i^t  &i6rarg  of 
(J)rofe66or  Hi^iffidm  j^^^^S  (Bteen 

f^e  fei6rarg  of 
(Princeton  J^eofo^icaf  ^emindr^ 

SS//74 


1^     Ht^^U.     ^^^L^L^ 


CRITICAL   AND   HISTORICAL 


^^icalSe^S 


INTRODUCTION 


CANONICAL     SCRIPTURES 


OLD     TESTAMENT 

JTroiii  tl)c  ©crman 

OF 

v' 
WILHELM    MARTIN   LEBERECHT  DE   WETTE. 

TRANSLATED     AND      ENLARGED 

BY 

THEODORE    PARKER, 

MINISTER     OF     THE     SECOND     CHURCH     IN     ROXBURY. 


TJ&xu^ov  fiii',  aaovaov  di. 


IN    TWO    VOLUMES. 

Vol.  I. 

SECOND     EDITION. 

BOSTON: 

CHARLES    C.   LITTLE    AND    JAMES    BROWN. 


18  5  0, 


F.ntered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1843,  by 

THEODORE    PARKER, 

111  the  Clerk's  Otiice  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


AUTHOR'S   PREFACE 


TO    FIRST    EDITION. 


In  my  public  lectures  in  this  department  of  study,  I  have  long 
felt  the  pressing  necessity  of  preparing  this  work  ;  and  now  I 
offer  this  Manual  of  the  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
great  theological  public,  with  the  conviction  that  I  have  ac- 
complished something  for  the  students  and  friends  of  science. 
If  this  compendium  contained  nothing  but  a  copious  and 
condensed  compilation  of  previous  critical  inquiries  on  the  Old 
Testament,  it  might  yet  deserve  a  place  beside  that  of  Bauer, 
which  is  now  somewhat  old,  or  that  of  Augusti,  which  is  not 
entirely  complete,  or  that  of  Jahn,  which  is  one-sided.  And 
if  no  one  should  conclude  to  make  it  the  basis  of  his  academic 
lectures, — and,  on  account  of  its  peculiar  opinions,  this  is  not 
to  be  expected,  —  yet  the  condensed  style  of  a  compendium 
renders  it  convenient  for  many  to  read  in  preparing  such 
exercises;  and  perhaps  it  may  render  this  science  —  which  is, 
besides,  somewhat  dry  —  attractive  to  such  as  have  been 
frightened  by  the  prolixity  and  breadth  of  other  treatises. 
But  I  am  myself  persuaded  that  in  some  parts  I  have  advanced 
the  science,  and  in  others  have  brought  it  back  to  the  right 
way.  However,  it  is  not  for  me  to  determine  how  far  I  have 
succeeded  in  the  first ;  but  I  may  rather  take  to  myself,  with 
some  confidence,  the  negative  merit  of  the  second. 

It  is  well  known  that,  from  the  very  beginning,  in  company 
with  the  good  spirit  of  free  inquiry,  the  pernicious  fondness 
for  vain  and  arbitrary  combinations  and  hypotheses  has  been 
brought  into  the  department  of  Biblical  Introduction,  and  has 


iv  author's  preface. 

extended  to  such  a  degree,  that  some  opinions  have  passed  for 
undoubted  truths,  in  the  great  theological  world,  which  yet 
have  no  foundation,  save  what  they  receive  from  the  wit  and  the 
persuasive  power  of  their  author;  and  that,  by  this  means, 
some  inquiries  have  passed  over,  almost  entirely,  from  the  his- 
torical ground  into  the  department  of  hypothesis.  Recently,  too 
much  deference  has  been  paid  to  this  spirit,  which  weakens  the 
healthy  force  of  genuine  historical  investigation  ;  and  thus  the 
burden  of  hypotheses,  under  which  Biblical  Introduction  lan- 
guishes, has  been  much  increased  in  recent  times.  In  opposition 
to  such  a  method  of  inquiry,  I  have  endeavored,  above  all,  to 
adhere  firmly  to  the  pure  matter  of  fact,  or  to  bring  back 
incjuiry  to  this  point,  when  it  had  wandered  therefrom.  For 
example,  the  history  of  the  canon — which,  since  Semler's 
time,  lias  not  been  able  to  extricate  itself  from  the  confusion  of 
ideas  into  which  it  has  fallen  —  has  been  brought  to  the  light 
for  the  first  time ;  and  the  history  of  the  Alexandrian  version 
has  been  at  least  restored  to  the  place  whither  Hody  had 
previously  advanced  it.  Since  his  time,  no  actual  progress  has 
been  made  in  this  department,  though  many  vain  hypotheses 
have  been  added.  So,  in  the  history  of  other  versions,  the 
reader  will  not  find  direct  and  new  investigations,  but  this  same 
adherence  to  what  is  a  matter  of  fact,  and  capable  of  proof. 
Similar  hints  for  conducting  us  back  to  the  true  path  are  also 
afforded  by  the  history  of  the  text,  in  its  present  new 
arrangement,  which  harmonizes  with  the  results  of  Gesenius's 
investigations  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  language  and 
character. 

In  the  inquiries  on  the  separate  books,  I  have  often  opposed 
the  theory  —  which  has  been  carried  too  far  —  that  they  are 
composed  of  separate  portions.  This  is  the  case  with  the  book 
of  Daniel  aiul  the  book  of  Wisdom."  I  am  indebted  to  the  hints 
of  my  friend  Gesenius  for  the  reasons  which  induce  me  to 
abandon  Bertholdt's  view  of  the  former ;  and,  in  offering  the 


•  [Here  the  author  refers  to  his  introduction  to  the  Apocrypha,  not  translated 
in  the  present  work.] 


AUTHOU'S    PREFACE.  V 

theory  that  the  book  of  Wisdom  is  composed  of  successive 
fragments,  I  have  gratefully  availed  myself  of  a  public 
lecture  of  my  friend  Liicke,  delivered  here  in  Berlin.  With 
these  exceptions,  my  readers  may  expect  to  find  my  views  of 
some  books  of  the  Old  Testament  —  which  have  long  been 
decried  —  still  unchanged  in  their  essential  features.  And, 
since  here  they  are  given  in  connection  with  my  views  of  the 
whole  Old  Testament,  it  will  at  least  be  conceded  that  they 
afford  a  connected  historical  picture,  which  is  consistent  with 
itself,  and  with  the  rest  of  history  ;  and  also  that  the  valuable 
results  of  Gesenius's  labors  in  the  criticism  of  language  coincide 
therewith  in  important  points. 

The  highest  point  to  which  the  historical  criticism  of  the 
Bible  aspires,  and  to  which  it  should  at  least  clear  the  way, 
is  to  render  the  productions  of  biblical  literature  intelligible  in 
their  historical  relations  and  peculiarities.  I  have  conscien- 
tiously endeavored  to  effect  this.  The  point  of  view  which  I 
have  taken  for  this  end  will  not  be  preferred  by  all.  Certainly 
it  will  surprise  some,  that,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  spurious 
productions,  I  consider  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  — 
which  have  hitherto  been  commonly  regarded  as  disguised 
historical  descriptions — as  actual  presentiments  of  the  future, 
though  without  denying  their  limited  extent  in  history,  or 
without  attributing  to  their  authors  a  superhuman  degree  of 
infallibility.  It  is  certainly  one-sided  to  judge  these  old  seers 
by  the  spirit  of  our  times,  and  to  deny  that  they  made  even 
the  attempt  to  foretell.  It  is  self-evident  that  it  is  of  great 
importance  to  the  criticism  and  exposition  of  the  prophets, 
which  supposition  is  followed. 

Since  all  literature  must  be  conceived  of  as  a  whole,  and 
taken  in  connection  with  other  history,  I  have  therefore  en- 
deavored to  classify  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  according 
to  the  views  of  the  Hebrews,  and  to  observe  the  relation  to 
their  manner  of  life  at  different  periods  of  history,  and,  to 
that  effect,  have  considered  each  book  in  reference  to  the 
place  it  bears  in  the  canon.  On  the  supposition  that  there  is 
the    closest  connection  between  form  and  substance,  I  have 


vi  author's  preface. 

attempted  to  designate  accurately  the  rhythmical  peculiarities 
of  each  book,  and  to  connect  them  with  the  other  peculiarities  : 
I  have  also  been  attentive  to  their  aesthetic  value.  I  trust 
scholars  acquainted  vv^ith  the  subject  will  not  overlook  these 
and  other  attempts,  and  will  examine  them  with  candor. 

Since  I  have  often  contradicted  my  predecessors,  and 
without  any  circumlocution,  so  it  is  but  candid  here  to  declare 
that  I  am  grateful  to  them,  notwithstanding  the  contradiction, 
for  the  service  they  have  rendered  me.  This  is  true 
especially  of  Bertholdt,  whose  opinions  I  often  reject,  but 
whose  diligence  in  collecting  has  always  afTorded  me  a  strong 
support,  and  whose  critical  sagacity,  even  when  it  has  not 
conducted  him  to  the  truth,  has  yet  excited  and  directed  me. 
I  have  throughout  referred  to  his  manual,  and  those  who 
possess  it  may  profitably  compare  the  passages  where  I 
contradict  and  correct  him.  That  I  am  sensible  of  the  merits 
of  Eichhorn,  no  one  will  doubt,  who  knows  how  much  the 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  rests  on  his  previous  labors. 
IJut  I  am  not  blind  to  his  faults  ;  I  even  reprove  them.  May 
his  admirers  forgive  me.  The  friends  of  truth  will  justify  the 
freedom  I  have  taken. 

THE  AUTHOR. 
Berlin,  at  tlie  end  of  June,  1817. 


TRANSLATOR'S   PREFACE. 


The  translation  of  De  Wette's  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament,  now  offered  to  the  public,  was  undertaken  several 
years  ago,  at  the  suggestion  of  an  eminent  theologian,  of  the 
Orthodox  denomination,  who  thought  the  work  would  be 
valuable  to  the  American  public ;  though  he  by  no  means 
coincided  with  the  author  in  all  his  opinions  respecting  the 
Scriptures.  Dr.  De  Wette  stands  at  the  head  of  the  liberal 
school  of  German  critics.  He  is  already  known  to  a  portion 
of  American  readers,  by  translations  of  two  of  his  minor  and 
less  important  works." 

The  work  here  translated  is  his  most  laborious  and  most 
valuable  production.  The  first  edition  was  pubhshed  in  1817, 
and  the  fifth,  which  has  been  followed  in  this  translation,  in 
1840,''  It  imbodies  the  results  of  the  critical  labors  of  the 
whole  world  upon  the  Scriptures,  and  exhibits,  in  a  brief  space, 
the  opinions  of  the  great  critics  of  past  and  present  times. 
Besides  this,  it  refers  to  all  the  most  valuable  literature,  ancient 
and  modern,  respecting  the  Old  Testament.     In  his  successive 


«  Theodore,  or  the  Skeptic's  Conversion,  translated  by  J.  F.  Clar/in,  (2  vols. 
12mo.,  Boston,  1841 ;)  Human  Life,  or  Practical  Ethics,  translated  by  Samuel 
Osgood,  (2  vols.,  Boston,  1842;)  published  in  Ripley  s  Specimens  of  Foreign 
Standard  Literature.  For  a  brief  account  of  the  author  and  his  works,  see 
Encyclopsedia  Americana;  Krug's  Encyclopad.  und  Philosophisch.  Lexicon, 
article  De  Wette. 

*  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Eiijleitung  in  die  kanonischen  und 
apocryphischen  Bucher  des  Alten  Testamentes,  von  Wilhelm  Martin  Leberecht 
de  Wette,  der  Theologie  Doctor  und  ordentlichem  Professor  an  der  Universitat 
zu  Basel ;  fonfte,  verbesserte  und  vermehrte  Ausgabe ;  Berlin,  bei  G.  Reimer, 
1840,  p.  xviii.  and  444. 


viii  translator's  preface. 

editions,  the  author  lias  been  aided  by  the  friendly  or  hostile 
works  of  his  contemporaries  —  the  great  critical  scholars  of 
Germany.  As  they  contemplate  the  Bible  from  different  points 
of  view,  and  bring  the  conflicting  prejudices  of  their  several 
schools  to  the  investigation  of  the  subject,  it  is  plain  they 
must  arrive  at  different  results.  But  one  corrects  the  other  ; 
for,  when  many  are  running  to  and  fro,  knowledge  will  be 
increased.  The  successive  editions  of  this  Introduction  show 
tiiat  the  author  has  availed  himself  of  the  results  of  others 
continually,  abandoning  opinions  as  soon  as  their  erroneous 
character  was  pointed  out.  He  says  himself,  in  the  preface  to 
the  fifth  edition,  "  In  the  seven  years  that  have  passed,  since 
the  publication  of  the  fourth  edition,  so  much  has  been  written 
on  tlic  criticism  and  explanation  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  I 
have  found  enough  to  do  in  comparing,  using,  or  refuting  it. 
The  results  of  this  work,  and   of  my  own  corrections,  appear 

in  various  portions  of  this  book I  have  often  found  myself 

constrained  to  alter  my  opinion.     I  have  been  aided  by  the 
investigations    of   my    highly-esteemed   friend    and    colleague, 
Stahelin,    in  tracing  the  document  '  Elohim '    through  all  the 
books  of  the  Pentateuch.     The   conviction  at  which   I  have 
arrived  —  that  the  '  Jehovistic '    portions  of  those  books,  with 
a  few  exceptions,  never  had  an  independent  existence  —  has 
induced  me,  with  Bleek,  Tuch,  and  others,  to  place  the  date  of 
the  Pentateuch  earlier  than  I  had  done  before.     It  seems  to 
me  now    that  the    critical  investigation   of  the  Pentateuch  is 
brought  much  nearer  to  its  proper  conclusion.     With  the  help 
of  Stahelin,   I    have    also    traced  the  document    'Elohim'   in 
the   book  of  .loshua,  and  by  this  means  a  new  light   is  shed 
upon  that  book.     We  may  hope  for  still  further  explanations, 
from  the  analytical  researches  of  the  same  critic  in  the  books 
of  Judges  and  Samuel.     The  works  of  Keil  and  Movers,   in 
defence  of  the  Chronicles,   have  not  led  me  to  any  essential 
alteration  of  my  former  views ;  but,  as  I  had  no  other  oppor- 
tunity, I  have  here  replied  to  their  objections  somewhat  more 
in  detail  than  the  space  of  this  text-book  seemed  to  allow.     In 
what  relates  to  th«'  books  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  I  have,  in 


translator's  preface.  ix 

some  respects,  allowed  myself  to  be  taught  by  another.  But 
my  views,  essentially,  remain  as  before.  I  have  not  been 
convinced  of  the  credibility  of  the  book  of  Esther  by  Baum- 
garten's  diligent  defence  of  it.  I  have  examined  the  acute 
inquiries  of  Movers  on  Jeremiah  ;  have  found  them  correct  in 
the  main,  and  have  made  use  of  them.  I  have  felt  obliged  to 
adhere  to  Roster's  view  of  the  second  part  of  Zechariah. 
Hirzel's  profound  view  of  the  book  of  Job  has  led  me  to  a 
repeated  examination  of  the  plan  of  the  book  ;  but  I  cannot 
entirely  agree  with  him. 

"  The  reader  will  easily  see  that,  in  many  subordinate 
matters,  I  am  indebted  to  the  writings  of  Ewald,  Grimm, 
Hitzig,  Knobel,  Von  Lengerke,  Tuch,  and  others.  I  will  only 
add,  further,  that  I  have  entirely  rewrought  the  chapter  on  the 
outward  form  of  the  text,  in  conformity  with  the  views  of 
Hupfeld.  I  have  made  a  comparison  of  Havernik's  Intro- 
duction throughout,  but  have  found  in  it  little  that  was 
useful." 

Perhaps  it  is  worth  while  to  say  a  few  words  about  the 
method  pursued  in  preparing  this  work  for  the  American  public. 
The  original  was  designed  as  a  sort  of  guide-book  for  both 
teachers  and  learners.  If  it  were  simply  translated,  it  would 
be  intelligible  to  but  a  few.  I  have  found  it  necessary  to 
supply  much  that  the  author  took  for  granted ;  I  have  there- 
fore made  extracts  from  other  writers,  given  essays  of  my  own, 
or  a  compendious  statement  of  the  opinions  of  various  critics. 
In  all  such  cases,  I  have  carefully  distinguished  these  additions 
from  the  original  by  enclosing  them  in  brackets  [  ].  De  Wette 
often  refers  to  the  passages  which  prove  a  statement  in  the 
text.  Sometimes  I  have  printed  the  passages  themselves, 
sometimes  given  a  synopsis  of  their  contents.  He  makes 
numerous  extracts  from  other  writers,  especially  the  ancients, 
in  their  own  language.  I  have  translated  these  extracts,  and 
also  given  the  original  in  the  margin.  An  example  of  the 
manner  in  which  passages  are  wrought  over,  may  be  seen  in 
"§.  145,  147 — 160,  and,  indeed,  in  the  greater  part  of  the  second 
volume.  Here  I  have,  as  I  trust,  faithfully  given  the  author's 
VOL.    I.  b 


X  translator's  preface. 

opinions,  but  in  a  form  very  different  from  his  own.''  In 
translating,  I  liave  aimed  more  to  give  the  sense  of  the  author 
tiian  to  render  his  language  word  for  word.  I  have  not 
hesitated,  therefore,  to  condense  or  to  expand  the  original,  as 
the  case  seemed  to  require.  I  have  removed  notes  into  the 
text,  or  placed  the  text  in  the  notes,  as  I  found  it  convenient  for 
my  purpose.  I  have  added  an  Appendix  to  the  first  volume, 
and  had  prepared  numerous  essays,  —  on  the  credibility  of  the 
Pentateuch,  on  the  Hebrew  Prophets,  on  several  separate  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  —  which  are  excluded  for  want  of 
space.  In  quotations  from  the  Bible,  I  have  generally  followed 
the  common  version;  but  in  the  Pentateuch,  (*§»  138 — 156,)  I 
have  used  the  Hebrew  words  "  Elohim "  and  "  Jehovah," 
instead  of  "  God "  and  "  the  Lord."  In  the  Prophets  and 
Psalms,  I  have  often  followed  the  beautiful  version  of  Dr. 
Noyes.  Sometimes  I  have  attempted  a  new  translation  of  a 
passage. 

I  have  translated  the  chapter  relating  to  the  canon  of  the 
New  Testament,  (<§>  18 — 29,)  though  it  may  seem  out  of  place 
in  an  Introduction  to  the  Old.  The  author's  entire  work  is 
divided  into  two  parts,  the  first  relating  to  the  Old  Testament 
—  and  Apocrypha,  which  I  have  not  translated,  —  the  second, 
to  the  New  Testament ;  and  therefore  the  inquiry  on  the 
canon  of  the  New  Testament  is  appropriate.  I  intend,  at 
some  future  day,  to  prepare  an  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  on  a  similar  plan,  and  this  chapter  will  serve  to 
connect  the  two. 

It  is  but  fair  to  suppose  that,  in  a  work  so  large  and  so  diffi- 
cult, I  have  made  mistakes.  I  leave  them  for  the  critic's  saga- 
city to  discover,  and  for  his  kindness  to  excuse  ;  hoping  that  he 
will  remember  how  often  the  spirit  is  willing,  while  the  flesh 
is  weak ;  and,  while  he  exposes  my  errors,  will  do  it  in  candor, 


°  I  hesitated,  for  some  time,  whether  to  call  the  work  a  Translation  of  De 
Wette's  Introduction,  or  an  Introduction  on  the  Basis  of  De  Wette ;  but,  as  the 
former  is  the  more  modest,  and  as  I  have  endeavored  to  translate  the  whole  of 
his  work  faithfully,  I  have  preferred  this  title. 


translator's  preface.  XI 

and  with  only  the  love  of  truth.  Perhaps  I  have  sometimes 
mistaken  the  sense  of  the  passages  from  the  Fathers,  in  the  first 
volume  ;  but  I  have  done  what  I  could,  and  have  left  the 
original  in  the  margin,  that  the  scholar  may  correct  my  mistakes, 
and  not  be  led  astray  by  any  errors  of  mine.  I  have,  so  far  as 
it  was  possible,  removed  all  foreign  words  —  Greek,  Latin,  and 
Hebrew  —  to  the  notes,  or  the  Appendix,  lest  they  should  deter 
the  general  reader  from  these  pages.  I  can  only  hope  the 
work  will  direct  critical  inquirers  to  a  faithful  examination  of 
the  Bible,  and  that  correct  views  of  its  origin  and  contents  may 
at  length  prevail.  If  I  can  be  instrumental  in  spreading  the 
light  of  truth  on  this  subject,  I  have  my  reward. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  express  my  gratitude  to  Rev.  Pro- 
fessors Stuart  of  Andover,  Francis  of  Cambridge,  Sears 
and  Hackett  of  Newton,  Drs.  Frothingham  and  Lamson, 
Rev.  George  Ripley,  and  other  gentlemen,  who  have  kindly 
aided  me  with  their  advice,  or  with  books  from  their  valuable 
libraries. 

THE  TRANSLATOR. 

West  Roxburt,  24th  August,  1843. 


CONTENTS. 


VOL..   I. 

INTRODUCTION. 


Page. 

Object  of  an  Introduction  to  the  Bible,  §1,.., 1 

Its  Contents,  §2, ^ 

Divisions  of  the  Subject,  §  3, 2 

Its  scientific  Character,  §  4, 3 

Its  Utility,  §  5,               4 

Its  History  and  Literature,  §  6, 5 


PART   I. 

OF  THE  BIBLE-COLLECTION  IN   GENERAL. 

BOOK    I. 

NAME,     CONSTITUENT     PORTIONS,     ORDER,     AND     DIVISION 
OF    THE    BIBLE. 

Names  of  the  Bible,  §  7, 9 

Constituent  Portions  of  the  First  and  Second  Part,  §  8, 11 

Constituent  Portions  of  the  Third  Part,  §  9, 12 

Order  and  Division  of  the  Old  Testament,  §  10, 13 

Order  and  Division  of  the  New  Testament,  §  11, 18 

BOOK    II. 

history  of  the  origin  of  the  collection  of 
scripture;  or,  history  of  the  canon. 

CHAPTER   I. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT   COLLECTION; 

OR,    HISTORY    OF    THE    JEWISH    CANON. 
Importance  and  Value  of  the  Hebrew  Literature,  §  12,  a,     ....    20 
Origin  and  Progress  of  Hebrew  Literature  till  the  Exile,  §  12,  6, .    .    24 


CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    I.  Xlll 

Progressive  Formation  and  Completion  of  the  Old  Testament  Collection 

after  the     xiie,  §  13, 26 

Pretended  Authors  of  the  Collection  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  §  14,  28 

Time  of  finishing  the  Old  Testament,  §  15, 36 

Grounds  of  Reception  into  the  Old  Testament  Collection,  §  IG,    .  38 

Samaritan  Canon,  §  17,  a, 42 

Canon  of  the  Sadducees,  §  17,  a«, 43 

The  pretended  Alexandrian  Canon,  §  17,  6, 45 

CHAPTER  II. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    COLLECTION    OF    THE    NEW 

TESTAMENT,    AND    OF    THE    BIBLE    IN    GENERAL  ;    OR, 

A    HISTORY    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON. 

Earliest  Traces  of  the  Use  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  by 

the  apostolic  Fathers,  §  18, 49 

Traces  of  the  Use  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  early  Writers  of 

the  Church,  §  19, 56 

Earliest  Traces  of  a  Collection  of  the  Writings  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, §  20, 58 

Two  Collections  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  §  21,  .    .     .  60 

Grounds  on  which  these  Books  were  received,  §  22, 63 

The  Canon  of  Origen,  §  23, 69 

The  Canon  of  Eusebius,  §  24,       75 

Use  and  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  among  the  Christians  of  the 

First  Centuries,  §  25, 83 

Canon  of  the  Greek  Church  in  the  Fourth  Century,  §  26,  ...    .  94 

Canon  of  the  Latin  Church  in  the  Fourth  Century,  §  27,  .     .     .    .  108 

Canon  of  the  Protestants  and  modern  Catholics,  §  28, 117 

Results  of  the  History  of  the  Canon  in  Respect  to  Criticism,  §  29,  119 

PART    II. 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CANONICAL  BOOK& 
OF  THE  OLD  TSETAMENT. 

BOOK  I. 

ON  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Name,  Country,  and  Origin,  of  the  Hebrew  Language,  §  30,      .    .  120 

Its  Relation  to  the  other  Shemitish  Languages,  §  31, 122 

The  Aramaean  Language,  §  32, 123 

The  Arabic  Language,  §  33, 125 

Formation  and  Extinction  of  the  Hebrew  Language,  §  34,     ...  126 

Means  of  learning  the  extinct  Hebrew,  §  35 — 38, 128 

1.  Historical  Materials,  §  35,  36, 128 


Xiv  CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    I. 

• 

1.  The  Tradition  of  learned  Jews,  §  35, 1'^ 

2.  The  old  Versions,  §  30 129 

II.   Philological  Materials,  §  37, 130 

1.  Etymology,    2.  Comparison  of  the  Dialects,  §  37,  .     .     .  130 

III.  Context  and  parallel  Passages,  §  38, 13i 

BOOK    II. 

ON  THE  VERSIONS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Value  of  the  Versions,  §  39,  o, 132 

Cl;issification  and  Literature  of  the  Versions,  >§  39,  6, 133 

The  various  Classes  of  the  Versions,  §  39,  c, 133 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE    GREEK    VERSIONS. 

I.   The  Alexandrian  Version.     Its  Origin,  §  40, 135 

Alexandrian  Version  continued,  §  41, 144 

Character  of  the  Alexandrian  Version,  §  42, 146 

Importance  and  Use  of  this  Version,  §  43, 149 

II.   The  other  Greek  Versions, 151 

Aquila's  Version,  §  44,  «,       151 

Theodotion's  Version,  §  44,  6, 157 

Version  of  Symmachus,  §  44,  c, 160 

The  three  anonymous  Versions,  &c.,  §  44,  rf, 162 

III.  Critical  History  of  the  Alexandrian  Version, 165 

Origen's  Hexapla,  §  45,  a, 165 

Further  Corruption  of  the  Alexandrian  Version,  §  45,  b,  .     .  177 

Other  critical  Recensions,  §  46, 178 

Manuscripts  and  Editions,  §  47, 181 

IV.  The  Descendants  of  the  Alexandrian  Version, 183 

1.  The  old  Latin  Version,  and  Jerome's  Recension  of  it,  §  48,  183 

2.  The  Versions  indirectly  made  into  Syriac,  §  49,     ...  192 

3.  The  Ethiopian  Version,  §  50, 199 

4.  The  ^Egyptian  Version,  §  51, 202 

5.  The  Armenian  Version,  §  52, 206 

6.  The  Georgian  or  Grusinian  Version,  §  53, 209 

7.  The  Sclavic  or  Sclavonic  Version,  §  54, 211 

8.  Several  Arabic  Versions,  §  55, 212 

V.  The  Venetian  Version,  §  56, 213 

CHAPTER  II. 

DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS. 

I.  The  Chaldee  Paraphrases,  or  Targums, 216 

Origin  of  the  Chaldee  Paraphrases,  §  57, 216 


CONTEiSTS    OF    VOL.    I.  XV 

1.  The  Targum  of  Onkelos,  §  58, 225 

2.  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  §  59, 228 

3.  Targum  of  the  pseudo  Jonathan  on  the  Pentateuch,  §  60,  232 

4.  The  Jerusalem  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch,  §  61,   .    ,    .  233 

5.  The  other  Targums,  §  62, 235 

II.   The  Samaritan  Version  of  the  Pentateuch,  §  63, 238 

III.  The  Syriac  Peshito,  §  64, 240 

IV.  Descendants  of  the  Peshito, 246 

Arabic  Versions  from  the  Syriac,  §  65, 246 

V.  Arabic  Versions 248 

1.  From  the  Jewish-Hebrew  Text,  §  66, 248 

2.  The  Samaritan-Arabic  Version  of  Abu-Said,  §  67, .    .    .  252 
VI.   Persian  Version  of  tlie  Pentateuch,  §  68,    . 255 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  PRESENT  LATIN  VULGATE. 

I.  Jerome's  Version  from  the  Hebrew,  §  69, 257 

The   Reception   of  this    Version,    and   Corruption  of    its   Text. 

Origin  of  the  new  Vulgate,  §  70, 263 

Critical  Attempts  to  correct  this  Version,  §  71, 272 

History  of  the  printed  Text  of  the  Vulgate,  §  72, 278 

II.  Descendants  of  the  Vulgate, 289 

1.  Anglo-Saxon  Version,  §  73, 289 

2.  Arabic  and  Persian  Translations  of  the  Vulgate,  §  74,      .  291 


BOOK    III. 

ON    THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT. 
General  View  of  the  Subject  of  this  Book,  §  75, 293 

DIVISION'  I. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT. 

CHAPTER  I. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    EXTERNAL    FORM    OF    THE    TEXT. 

Preliminary  Remarks  on  Hebrew  Palaeography,  §  76, 294 

Division  of  the  Text, ,  296 

1.  Division  into  larger  and  smaller  Passages,  §  77, 296 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  78,       298 

2.  The  Division  into  Stichs  or  Verses,  §  79, 301 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  80,  a, 303 

The  same  Subject  concluded,  §  80,  6, 305 


Xvi                                  CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    I.  1 

CHAPTER  II. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT    ITSELF. 

Corruption  of  the  Text  of  the  Old  Testament,  §  81, 307 

Probabihty  that  Errors  would  be  introduced  into  the  Text,  §  82,    .  308 

Origin  of  erroneous  Readings, 310 

1.  By  Accident,  §  83, 310 

2.  Falsification  by  Design,  §  84, 314 

Fate  of  the  Text  before  the  Canon  was  closed,  §  85, 319 

Origin  of  the  Samaritan- Alexandrian  Recension  of  the  Pentateuch,  §  86,  323 

Critical  Value  of  this  Recension,  §  87, 335 

The  Fate  of  the  Jewish  Text  till  tlie  Composition  of  the  Talmud,  §  88,  338 

Traces  of  a  critical  Care  for  the  Text  in  the  Talmud,  §  89,  .     .    .  342 

The  Masora,  §  90, 346 

Tlie  Labors  of  the  Masorites,  and  Contents  of  the  Masora,  §  91,    .  353 

Eastern  and  Western  Readings,  §  92, 358 

Completion  of  the  Punctuation  of  the  Text.     Readings  of  Ben  Asher 

and  Ben  Naphtali,  §  93, 360 

History  of  the  Text  until  the  Invention  of  Printing,  §  94,       ...  361 

The  printed  Text.     Principal  Editions  or  Recensions,  §  95,   .     .     .  364 

Critical  Apparatus,  §  96,       371 

Results  of  the  History  of  tlie  Text,  §  97, 373 

Various  critical  Systems,  §  98, 375 

DIVISIOX^  II. 

THEORY    OF    THE    CRITICISM    OF    THE    HEBREW    TEXT. 

Object  of  the  Criticism  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  §  99, 376 

General  Theory  of  the  Office  of  Criticism,  §  100,       377 

CHAPTER   I. 

THE    DOCUMENTARY    MEANS    TO    AID    IN    THE    CRITICISM    OF  THE 
OLD    TESTAMENT. 

General  View  and  Division  of  the  Subject,  §  101, 378 

I.   Means  of  ascertaining  the  Text  before  closing  the  Canon,  §  102,  380 

II.   Means  of  ascertaining  the  Text  before  the  Time  of  the  Masorites,  380 

1.  The  Versions,  §  103, 380 

Utility  of  the  different  Versions,  §  104, 382 

2.  Quotations  from  the  Bible  by  the  Talmud  and  Rabbins,  §  105,  383 

3.  The  Masora,  §  106, 384 

III.  Means  of  ascertaining  the  Samaritan  Text,  §  107, 385 

IV.  Means  of  ascertaining  the  Masoretic  Text, 386 

1.  The  Manuscripts,  §  108, 386 

A.  Rolls  of  the  Synagogue,  §  109, 386 


CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    I.  XVll 

B.  Private  Manuscripts  in  the  Chaldee   Square  Letter.      De- 

scription of  them,  §  110, 388 

The  Writing  Character  used  in  the  Manuscripts,  §  111,  .  389 
Subscriptions  and  other  Marks  of  the  Antiquity  of  Man- 
uscripts, §  112, 391 

The  Writers  of  the  Manuscripts,  §  113, 392 

C.  Private  Manuscripts  in  the  Rabbinical  Character,  §  114,  a,  394 

Manuscripts  of  the  Chinese  Jews,  §  114,  b, 394 

The  Manuscripts  of  the  Malabar  Jews,  §  114,  c,  .     .     .     .  395 

2.    Original  Editions,  §  115, 396 

CHAPTER   II. 

CRITICAL    MAXIMS. 

False  Maxims,  §  116, 397 

The  most  important  Maxims   in  Respect  to  the   Originality   of  the 

Reading,  §  117, 399 

I.  Exegetico-Critical  Grounds  of  Originality,     ...         ....  399 

1.  Considerations  drawn  from  the  General  Laws  of  the  Mind,  399 

A.  Logical  Grounds  of  Originality,  §  118, 399 

B.  Grammatical  Grounds  of  Originality,  §  119,     .     .     .  400 

C.  Rhetorical  Grounds  of  Originality,  §  120,     ....  401 

2.  Considerations   drawn   from  the   peculiar  Character  of  the 

Writer,  §  121, 402 

II.  Historico-Critical  Grounds  of  Originality,  §  122, 404 

Judgment  of  the  Critical  Witnesses  as  a  Whole,  §  123,    .     .     .  405 

Critical  Conjecture,  §  124, 407 


APPENDIX. 

A.  Catalogue  of  Books  cited  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  now  lost,  410 

B.  Meaning  of  the  Words  Canon  and  Apocrypha, 412 

C.  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  according  to  several  ancient  Au- 

thorities, before  the  Fifth  Century  A.  C, 415 

D.  History  of  the  Hebrew  Language  to  the  Time  of  its  Extinction,  428 

E.  History  of  the  Hebrew  Writing  Character, 473 

F.  Origin  and  History  of  the  Hebrew  Vowels,  Accents,  &c.,     .     .  485 

G.  Specimens  of  the   Kind  of  Difference  between  the  two  Papal 

Editions  of  the  Vulgate, 504 

H.   Parallel  Passages  in  the  Old  Testament, *    .    .  506 

I.     The  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 509 

VOL.    I.  C 


Xviii  CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    II. 


VOLi.    II. 


PART    III. 

PARTICULAR  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CANONICAL  BOOKS 
OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

A  Survey  and  Classification  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  §  125,  3 

Various  Styles,  poetic  and  prosaic,  §  126, 4 

Rhythmical  Books,  §  127, 5 

Symmetry  of  the  Members,  §  128,        5 

Different  Kinds  of  Symmetry  of  Members, 7 

1.  Symmetry  of  Words,  §  129,       7 

2.  Symmetry  of  Thoughts,  §  130, 8 

A.  With  similar  Members,  §  130, 8 

B.  Symmetry  with  dissimilar  Members,  §  131, 10 

C.  With  double  Members,  §  132, 11 

3.  Rhythmical  Symmetry,  §  133, 12 

Rhythm  indicated  by  the  Accent,  §  134,  a, .  13 

Strophes,  or  Symmetry  of  Verses,  §  134,  b, 14 

BOOK    I. 

THEOCRATICAL-HISTORICAL    BOOKS. 

A  View  of  these  Books,  and  a  Classification  of  them,  §  135,    ...  18 

General  Peculiarities  of  these  Books, 22 

1.  With  Reference  to  their  Contents  and  Style,  §  136,  a,    ...  22 
Continuation  of  tlie  above,  §  136,  6, 24 

2.  In  Reference  to  their  literary  Origin,  §  137,        27 

CHAPTER  L 

THE    BOOKS    OF    MOSES. 

Their  Names,  §  138, 28 

Contents  of  these  Books, 29 

1.  Genesis,  §  139, 29 

2.  Exodus,  §  140, 33 

3.  Leviticus,  §  141, 33 

4.  Numbers,  §  142, 34 

5.  Deuteronomy,  §  143, 34 

Peculiarities  of  this  Narrative, 35 

1.  In  Reference  to  Completeness,  §  144, 35 


CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    II.  XJX 

2.  With  Reference  to  Pragmatism  and  Mytliology,  §  145, ...  36 

Origin  and  Progress  of  tlie  Mosaic  Mythology,  §  146, 38 

Later  literary  Treatment  of  tliese  Legends,  §  147,  a, 40 

The  epic  and  prophetic  Treatment  of  these  Legends,  §  147,  b,    .    ,  43 

Errors  in  Respect  to  historical  Truth,  §  148, 51 

The  Accounts  pretended  to   be   contemporary  with  tlie    Events,  or 

very  ancient,  §  149, 70 

3.  The  various  Fragments  which  compose  these  Books,  §  150,  .  76 

A.  Genesis,  §  150, 76 

B.  Exodus,  §  151, 105 

C.  Leviticus,  §  152,  a, 115 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  152,  6, 117 

D.  Numbers,  §  153, 122 

i'                 E.   Deuteronomy,  §  154, 131 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  155, 133 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  156, 134 

4.  Date  of  these  Fragments,  and  of  the  whole  Pentateuch,  §  157,  144 

A.  Tlie  Document  Elohim,  §  158, 145 

B.  The  Jehovistic  Documents,  §  159, 147 

C.  Deuteronomy,  §  160, 150 

Historical  Traces  of  the  Existence  of  the  Pentateuch,  §  161,       .     .  151 

A.  Traces  in  Matters  of  Fact,  §  162,  a, 152 

B.  Traces  of  its  Existence  in  Writers,  §  162,  h, 154 

Historical  Progress  of  the  Observance  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  §  162,  c,  158 

Sources  which  the  Author  of  the  Pentateuch  made  Use  of,  §  162,  d,  159 

Opinion  that  Moses  was  the  Author  of  the  Pentateuch,  §  163,     .     .  160 

History  of  the  historical  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  §  164,   .     .     .  161 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE     BOOK    OF    JOSHUA. 

Contents  of  the  Book,  §  165, 165 

Peculiarity  of  the  Narrative,  §  166, 168 

Historical  Inaccuracy  and  Contradictions,  §  167, 171 

Different  Fragments  of  this  Book,  §  168, 180 

Date  of  the  Composition  of  the  Book,  §  169, 186 

Author  of  the  Book,  §  170, 189 

The  Samaritan  Book  of  Joshua,  §  171, 191 

CHAPTER  TIL 

THE     BOOK    OF    JUDGES. 

Contents  of  the  Book,  §  172, 193 

Character  of  the  Narrative,  §  173, 194 

Compilation  of  the  Book,  §  174,    ...,,,, 199 


XX  CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    II. 

The  Age  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  §  175,  a, 204 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  175,  6,       205 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    BOOKS    OF     SAMUEL. 

Name  and  Division,  §  176, 207 

Contents  of  the  Book,  §  177, 208 

Character  of  the  Narrative,  §  178, 209 

Traces  of  different  Documents,  §  179,  «, 214 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  179,  6,       ,     .     .  220 

Time  of  the  Composition  of  this  Book,  §  180, 226 

CHAPTER   V. 

THE     BOOKS    OF    THE    KINGS. 

Name  and  Division,  §  181, 229 

The  Contents,  §  182, 229 

Character  of  the  Narrative,  §  183, 230 

Literary  Character  of  the  Book,  §  184,  a, 238 

Further  Characteristics  of  these  Books,  §  184,  b, 242 

Time  of  the  Composition,  §  185, 247 

Difference  from  the  Books  of  Samuel,  §  186, 248 

CHAPTER   VI. 

THE    BOOKS    OF    THE    CHRONICLES. 

Name,  Division,  and  Contents,  of  the  Books  of  the  Chronicles,  §  187,  253 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  188, 261 

Relation  of  the  Chronicles  to  the  earlier  historical  Books,  ....  263 

1.  In  Respect  to  Antiquity,  §  189, 263 

2.  In  Respect  to  their  common  Contents,  §  190,  a, 265 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  190,  fe, 267 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  190,  c,       274 

Character  of  the  peculiar  Accounts  of  the  Chronicles,  §  191,       .     .  295 

Sources  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  §  192,  a, 306 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  192,  h, 308 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  192,  c, 309 

The  same  Subject  concluded,  §  192,  d, 312 

Design  and  Author,  §  192,  e, 315 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    BOOK    OF    RUTH. 

Contents  and  Design  of  the  Book,  §  193, 317 

Itfl  Age  and  Author,  §  194,      ,    ,    .    , 320 


CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    II.  XXI 
CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    BOOKS    OF    EZRA    AND    NEHEMIAH. 

Contents,  §  195, 322 

The  constituent  Parts  and  Author  of  the  Book  of  Ezra,  §  196,  a,    .  324 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  196,  6, 328 

Constituent  Portions  and  Author  of  the  Book  of  Nehemiah,  §  197,  a,  331 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  197,  h, 334 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE    BOOK    OF    ESTHER. 

Contents  and  Credibility  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  §  198,  a,  .     .    .     .  336 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  198,  6,       339 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  198,  c, 340 

Age  and  Author  of  the  Book,  §  199, 345 

Additions  to  the  Book  of  Esther,  §  200, 348 

BOOK  II. 

THE    THEOCRATICAL    INSPIRED    BOOKS. 

Their  Relation  to  the  Foregoing,  §  201, 350 

Name  and  Idea  of  a  Prophet,  §  202, 351 

Contents  and  Objects  of  the  prophetic  Discourses,  §  203,  ....  353 

Spirit  of  the  prophetic  Predictions,  §  204, 354 

The  Discourse  and  Style  of  the  Prophets,  §  205, 357 

'J'he  Composition  of  the  prophetic  Books,  §  20Q, 362 

CHAPTER  I. 

ISAIAH. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  207, 364 

Spuriousness    of  the   Second  Part  of  the   Prophecies   ascribed  to 

him,  §  208, 366 

Spurious  Passages  contained  in  the  First  Part,  §  209, 373 

Doubtful  Passages  in  the  First  Part,  §  210, 378 

Genuine  Passages  of  Isaiah,  §  211, 385 

On  Isaiah  xxxvi. — xxxix.,  §  212, 387 

Origin  of  this  miscellaneous  Collection,  §  213, 390 

Literary  Character  of  Isaiah,  §  214, 391 

CHAPTER  IL 

JEREMIAH. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  215, 394 

Contents  of  the  Book,  §  216, 395 

Spuriousness  of  Parts  of  the  Book,  §  217,  a, 396 


Xxii  CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    II. 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  217,  b, 401 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  217,  c, 403 

Masoretic  and  Alexandrian  Recension,  §  218,  a, 406 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  218,  6, 407 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  218,  c, 410 

The  same  Subject  concluded,  §  218,  rf, 412 

Different  Editions  and  Collections  of  these  Prophecies,  §  219,  a,     .  413 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  219,  b, 416 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  219,  c, 417 

The  same  Subject  concluded,  §  219,  d, 418 

Literary  Character  of  the  Prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  §  220,    ....  419 

CHAPTER  III. 

EZEKIEL. 

Circumstances  of  his  Life  and  Times,  §  221, 425 

Contents  of  the  Book,  §  222, 426 

The  literary  and  prophetic  Character  of  Ezekiel,  223,  a,    .    .    .    .  427 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  223,  h, 431 

Manner  in  which  the  Book  originated,  §  224, 432 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    TWELVE    MINOR    PROPHETS. 

Collection  of  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets,  §  225, 434 

/.     Hosea. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  226, 436 

Contents  of  the  Prophecies,  §  227, 438 

Their  literary  Character,  §  228, 440 

The  Collection  of  his  Prophecies,  §  229, 441 

//.     Joel. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  230, 441 

Contents  and  Spirit  of  the  Propliecy,  §  231, 443 

///.    Amos. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  232, 445 

Contents  of  his  Prophecies,  §  233, 446 

I'hoir  literary  Character,  §  234, 447 

IV.     Obadiah. 

Contents  and  Date  of  Jiis  Prophecy,  §  235, 449 

V.    Jonah. 

Character  of  the  Book,  judging  from  its  Contents,  §  236,    ....  451 

Its  literary  Character,  §  237, 454 

VI.    Micah. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  238, 455 

Contents  and  Spirit  of  his  Prophecies,  §  239, ,    .  458 


CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    II.  XXlll 

VIL     JVahuvi. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  240, 460 

Contents  and  Spirit  of  his  Prophecy,  §  241, 462 

VJII.    Habakkuk. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  242, 463 

Contents  and  Spirit  of  iiis  Prophecy,  §  243, 465 

IX.    Zephaniah. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  244, 468 

Contents  and  Spirit  of  his  Prophecies,  §  245, 469 

X.    Haggai. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  24<i, 470 

Contents  and  Spirit  of  the  Prophecy,  §  247, 471 

XI.     Zechariah. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  248, 472 

Contents  and  Spirit  of  the  First  Part  of  his  Prophecy,  §  249,     .     .  473 

On  tlie  Second  Part,  ix. — xiv.,  §  250,  a, 475 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  250,  6, 476 

XII.     Malachi. 

His  Life  and  Times,  §  251, 481 

Contents  and  Spirit  of  the  Prophecy,  §  252, 482 

CHAPTER  V. 

DANIEL. 

Accounts  of  Daniel,  §  253, 483 

Contents  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  §  254, 486 

Spuriousness  of  the  Book,  §  255, 488 

Unity  of  the  Book,  §  256, 495 

Age  and  Design  of  the  Book,  §  257, 500 

Alexandrian  Version  of  Daniel,  §  258, 506 

The  Apocryphal  Additions  to  Daniel,  §  259, 510 


BOOK    III. 

POETICAL    BOOKS. 

Character  and  Kinds  of  Hebrew  Poetry.     Its   Relation  to  Prophe- 
cy, §  260,   513 

The  same  Subject  continued,  §  261, 515 

Lyric  Poetry,  §  262, 516 

Lyric  Literature,  §  263, 517 

Didactic  Poetry,  §  264, 517 

Classification  of  the  poetic  Books,  §  265, 518 

Rhythmical  Peculiarities,  §266, 519 


Kxiv  CONTENTS    OF    VOL.    II. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE    PSALMS. 

The  Title,  Contents,  and  Division,  of  the  Book,  §  267, 520 

Inscriptions  of  the  Psalms,  §  268, 523 

The  Autliors  of  the  Psalms,  §  269, 524 

Age  and  Originality  of  the  Psalms,  §  270, 527 

Origin  of  the  Collection  of  Psalms,  §  271, 528 

CHAPTER   II. 

THE    LAMENTATIONS. 

The  Kind  of  Composition,  §  272, 530 

Title  and  Contents  of  tlie  Book,  §  273, 531 

The  Author,  §  274, .532 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE    SONG    OF    SOLOMON. 

The  Kind  of  Composition  to  which  the  Book  belongs,  §  275,      .     .     533 

Title  and  Contents,  §  276, 534 

Age  and  Author,  §  277, 538 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  PROVERBS  OF  SOLOMON. 

Contents  of  the  Book,  §  278, 540 

Composition  of  the  Book,  §  279, 541 

Origin  of  this  Collection,  §  280, 542 

Age  and  Author,  §  281, 544 

CHAPTER  V. 

ECCLESIASTES,    OR    THE    PREACHER. 

Style  and  Spirit  of  the  Book,  §  282, 546 

Title  and  Contents,  <§  283, 548 

Its  Age  and  Author,  §  284, • 552 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    BOOK    OF    JOB. 

Style  and  Spirit  of  the  Book,  §  285, 554 

The  Contents,  Subject,  and  Unity,  of  the  Poem,  §  286, 556 

Spuriousness  of  Elihu's  Speeches,  §  287, 558 

Suspicions  against  xxvii.  11 — xxviii.  28,  §  288, 560 

Suspicions  against  the  Prologue  and  Epilogue,  §  289, 563 

The  Idea  and  Design  of  the  Poem,  §  290, 564 

The  Country  and  Age  in  which  it  was  written,  §  291,  .    .    .    .    .  567 


RECENT   LITERATURE 
RELATING  TO  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT, 


The  following  are  believed  to  be  the  most  important  works  which 
have  recently  appeared  in  the  various  departments  of  inquiry  con- 
nected with  the  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament :  — 

Hauff,  Offenbarunsglaube  u.  Kritik  d.  bib.  Geschichtsbiicher ;  Stuttgart, 
1843. 

Hilpfeld,  Begriff  u.  Methode  d.  sogenannten  bib.  Einleit ;  Marburg, 
1844. 

Kirchhofer,  Quellensammhmg  zur  Gesch.  d.  N.  T.  Canons ;  Zurich,  1843. 

Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  heiligen  Schriften  d.  N.  T. ;  Halle,  1842. 

Guerike,  Hist.  krit.  Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T. ;  Halle,  1843. 

Von  Lengerke,  Kenaan,  &c. ;  Kbnigsberg,  1843. 

Eivald,  Gesch.  des  Volks  Israel ;  Gott.  1843 — 7,  (4  vols.,  not  yet  finished.) 

Tiele,  Chronologie  d.  A.  T. ;  Bremen,  1839. 

Movers,  Loci  quidam  Hist.  Canon.  V.  T. ;  Vratisl.  1842. 

Schtvegler,  Nachapostolischee  Zeitalter ;  Tiib.  1846. 

Lepsius,  Die  Chronologie  d.  ^Egyptien,  Th.  I.  Kritik  d.  Quellen ;  Berlin, 
1849,  4to. 

Lutz,  Biblische  Hermeneutik ;  Pforzhein,  1849. 

Thiersch,  De  Pentat.  Vers.  Alexand. ;  Erlangen,  1840. 

Frankel,  Vorstudien  zur  LXX. 

SaMschiltz,  Forschungen  auf  d.  Gebiete  d.  Hebraisch-Aegypt.  Archaolo- 
gie ;  Konigsberg,  1849. 

Movers,  Das  Phonizische  Alterthum,  in  3  Theilen.     Th.  I. ;  Berlin,  1849. 

[JVewman,]  History  of  the  Hebrew  Monarchy ;  London,  1847. 

Maurer,  Commentatio  crit.  gram,  in  V.  T. ;  Lips.  1833 — 1847.  4  vols. 
8vo.    (Covers  the  whole  O.  T.) 

Kurzgefasst.  exegetisch.  Handbuch  z.  A.  T. ;  Leips.  1838 — 1850.  (Pt.  L 
The  Minor  Prophets,  by  HUzig ;  II.  Job,  by  Hirzel;  III.  Jeremiah,  by 
Hitzig ;  IV.  Samuel,  by  Thenius ;  V.  Isaiah,  by  Knohel ;  VI.  Judges  and 
Ruth,  by  Bertheau;  VII.  Proverbs,  by  Bertheau,  and  Ecclesiastes  by 
Hitzig ;  VII.  Ezekiel,  by  Hitzig ;  IX.  Kings,  by  Thenius.) 

Ewcdd,  Jahrbacher  der  bib.  Wissenschaft,  I.  &  II.    Gott.  1849—1850. 
VOL.    I.  d 


XXvi      RECENT  LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Studien  u.  Kritiken  ;  Hamburg,  1842—1850. 

Baur  u.  Zellers,  Tlieologisch.  Jahrbiicher ;  Tlib,  1841—1850. 

Kitto,  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature  ;  London,  1848 — 1850. 

Bibliotheca  Sacra ;  New  York. 

Reinke,  Die  Weissagung  Jacobs ;  1  Mos.  XLIX ;  8—12 ;  Munster,  1849. 

Stahelin,  Krit.  Unters.  lib,  Pentat.,  Sic,  iib.  Genesis,  &c. 

ff^elte,  Nachmosaisches  im  Pentat. ;  Halle,  1841. 

Jvynboll,  Chronicon.  Samaritanum,  Arabice  conscript,  cui  Titulus  est 
Liber  Josu(e,  &c.  ;  Lug.  Bat.  1848,  4to. 

Graf,  De  Librorum  Sam.  et  Regura  Compos.,  &c.  &c. ;  Argent.  1842. 

Fritzsche,  £2"  0/fP.  —  Duplicem  Libri  Text,  adopt.  Codd.,  &c. ;  Turici, 
1848. 

Stickel,  Das  Buch  Hiob  ;  Leips.  1842. 

Welte,  Das  Buch  Hiob  ;  Freiburg,  1849. 

Tkoluck,  Unters.  u.  Auslegung.  d.  Psalmen  ;  Halle,  1843. 

Hengstenberg,  Commentar  lib.  d.  Psalmen,  2te  Aufl.,  B.  I. ;  Berlin,  1849. 

Magnus,  Krit.  Bearbeitung  u.  Erklar.  des  Hohenliedes  Salomos ;  Halle, 
1842. 

Caspari,  BeitrJige  zur  Einleit.  in  d.  Buch  Jesaia  u.  z.  Gesch.  d.  jesaia- 
nischen  Zeit ;  Berlin,  1848. 

Reinke,  Die  Weissagung  um  der  Jungfrau  u.  um  Immanuel.  Jes.  VIL  14 
—16 ;  Munster,  1848. 

Dreschler,  Der  Prophet  Jesaja;   Stuttgart,  1847 — 1849,  (containing  Ch. 

L— xxvn.) 

Stier,  Jesaias,  nicht  Pseudo-Jesaias.  Auslegung  seiner  Weissagung. 
Kap.  XL.— LXVL     Lieferung  I.     Barmen,  1850. 

Movers,  De  utriusque  Recens.  Vat.  Jeremise  Indole  et  Origins ;  Vratial. 
1843. 

Umbreit,  Prakt.  Comm.  iib.  d.  Jeremias ;  1842. 

Stuart,  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Daniel ;  Boston,  1850. 

G.  Baur,  Der  Prophet  Amos ;  Giessen,  1847. 


TRANSLATOR'S    PREFACE 


SECOND    EDITION. 


In  preparing  this  work  for  a  new  edition,  I  have  cor- 
rected a  few  errors,  discovered  by  myself  or  pointed  out 
by  others,  and  given  a  list  of  the  most  important  works 
relating  to  the  whole  or  parts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  have  appeared  since  1842.  In  other  respects,  this 
does  not  differ  from  the  first  edition. 

THEODORE  PARKER. 
West  Roxbort,  2Atk  August,  1850. 


INTRODUCTION, 


§1. 

OBJECT  OF  AN   INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   BIBLE. 

Under  the  name  Introduction  to  the  Bible,  Introduc- 
iio  sive  Isagoge  in  Scripturam  Sacram,  or  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament,  it  has 
been  found  advantageous,  for  the  study  of  the  Bible, 
to  collect  into  a  whole  certain  preliminary  information, 
which  is  necessary,  both  in  books  and  academic  lectures, 
to  the  right  view  and  treatment  of  the  Bible.  This  is 
indeed  destitute  of  a  true  scientific  principle,  and  of  a 
necessary  connection  between  its  parts  ;  but  yet,  by  re- 
ferring it  to  its  several  departments,  namely,  the  history, 
the  historical  circumstances,  and  the  peculiarities  of  the 
scriptural  books,  both  of  the  whole  collection  and  of  its 
separate  parts,  it  is  pretty  accurately  distinguished  from 
the  other  studies  which  belong  to  an  examination  of  the 
Bible,  such  as  biblical  history,  (that  is,  a  church  his- 
tory of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,)  from  biblical 
arch(Eology,  with  biblical  geography  and  chronology, 
(which  may  be  called  exegetic  assistant  sciences,)  and 
from  biblical  hermeneutics,  —  though  these  were  former- 
ly confounded  with  it.     It  serves  as  a  special  introduc- 

VOL.    I.  1 


2  INTRODUCTION.  [§  2,  3. 

tion  to  these  studies,  and  to  exegesis  itself,  and  there- 
fore it  is  rather  to  be  classed  with  the  latter  than  with 
the  former." 

ITS   CONTENTS. 

When  the  question  is  asked.  What  is  the  Bible,  and 
how  has  it  become  what  it  is  ?  inquiries  arise  on  the 
following  subjects,  which  make  up  the  contents  of  an 
introduction  to  the  Bible: 

1.  On  the  origin  of  the  collection  indicated  by  the 
name  Bible,  or,  on  the  canon. 

2.  On  the  original  languages  of  the  Bible. 

3.  On  the  versions  of  the  Bible. 

4.  On  the  state  of  the  text,  its  history  and  restoration. 
In  these  inquiries,  all  the  books  are  included  under  the 

title  general  introduction,  because  but  little  regard  is 
paid  to  the  difference  between  particular  books.  But, 
on  the  contrary,  inquiries  as  to  the  names,  authors,  age, 
and  peculiarities  of  the  single  books,  belong  to  particular 
introduction. 

DIVISIONS   OF  THE   SUBJECT. 

Since,  in  a  Protestant  and  historical  view,  the  Bible 
consists  of  three  essentially  different  collections,  (^  8,  9,) 
introduction  to  the  Bible  is,  likewise,  threefold,  and 
to  be  treated  as  such,  namely  : 

"'  [Hcivernik,  in  his  Handbucli  der  historisch-krilischen  Einleitung  in  d.  A. 
T.,  (Erlangen,  1836,)  <^  3,  affirms,  in  opposition  to  De  TFette,  that  biblical  in- 
troduction really  possesses  a  scientific  principle,  to  wit,  "  It  must  find  the 
scientific  principle  and  the  development  thereof  in  itself,''^  meaning,  I  sup- 
pose, only  that  the  introduction  must  be  determined  by  the  character-  of  the 
scriptural  books,  and  the  spirit  of  antiquity.]  See  Hagenbach,  Encyclopadie, 
§  43,  eq. 


§  4.]  INTRODUCTION.  3 

I.  Introduction  to  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

II.  Introduction  to  the  apocryphal  books  of  tlie  Old 
Testament. 

III.  Introduction  to  the  canonical  books  of  the  New 
Testament. 

The  division  into  general  and  particular  introduction 
is  to  be  repeated  in  each  of  these  departments.  How- 
ever, the  apocryphal  books  do  not,  like  the  others,  con- 
stitute an  independent  collection  by  themselves,  but 
are  rather  an  appendix  to  the  canonical  books.  It  seems 
convenient  and  proper  to  exempt  the  inquiry  on  the 
Bible,  as  a  whole,  and  on  its  origin,  from  this  division, 
and  to  treat  all  its  parts  in  common. 

ITS   SCIENTIFIC   CHARACTER. 

Since  the  object  of  an  introduction  to  the  Bible  is  the 
history  of , the  Bible,  its  scientific  character  is  historico- 
critical ;  that  is,  the  Bible  is  to  be  considered  as  an  his- 
torical phenomenon,  in  a  series  with  other  such  phe- 
nomena, and  entirely  subject  to  the  laws  of  historical 
inquiry."  The  consideration  of  it  in  a  religious  view  — 
that  is,  according  to  the  dogma  of  inspiration  and  revela- 
tion—  falls  within  the  department  of  introduction  only 
so  far  as  this  dogma  is  connected  with  the  history  of  the 
origin  of  the  Bible.  This  dogma  itself,  therefore,  is 
likewise  to  be  treated  historically.  However,  the  intro- 
ductory treatment  of  the  history  of  the  canon  must  turn 

"  See  Augusti,  Histor.-dogmat.  Einleit  in  d.  h.  S.,  (1832,)  ch.  2,  who 
shows  that  the  historical  and  critical  is  compatible  with  the  ideal  and  dog- 
matic view,  though  not  when  the  latter  is  taken  according  to  the  tradi- 
tionary prejudice  of  the  church. 


4  INTRODUCTION.  [^  5. 

out  differently  from  the  dogmatic  history  of  the  same, 
because  the  critical  principle  preponderates  in  the  former. 
[Havernik,  and  most  of  the  English  and  American 
theologians  with  him,  object  to  this  method,  and  insist 
that  the  books  of  the  Bible  should  be  examined  from 
a  religious  point  of  view,  declaring  that  dogmatic  theol- 
ogy is  the  touchstone,  wherewith  we  are  to  decide 
between  the  true  and  the  false,  the  genuine  and  the 
spurious.  He,  therefore,  examines  the  Bible  not  simply 
as  an  historical  production,  but  as  the  highest  standard 
of  human  faith  and  life.  Thus  he  considers  these  books 
as  a  peculiar  phenomenon,  not  to  be  judged  of  by  the 
same  canons  of  criticism  which  apply  to  all  other  works. 
But  the  method  which  he  and  they  propose  strikes  a 
death-blow  at  all  criticism,  and  commits  the  Bible  to  a 
blind  and  indiscriminating  belief.] 


§5. 

ITS    UTILITY. 

Its  use  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  it  serves  as  in- 
troductory to  the  exposition  of  the  Bible ;  that  is,  it 
shows  the  proper  stand-point  ol'  exposition,  and  fur- 
nishes the  historical  materials  which  are  necessary  to 
the  explanation  of  the  Bible.  To  treat  it,  then,  as  a  pe- 
culiar theological  exercise,  has  not  only  an  external  ad- 
vantage in  a  literary  and  academic  respect,  but  also  an 
internal  advantage  for  the  science  itself;  because,  on 
the  one  hand,  these  separate  materials  are  closely  con- 
nected, and  mutually  explain  and  support  one  another ; 
and  again,  on  the  other,  because  the  principles  of  in- 
quiry are  the  same  throughout,  and  are  the  more  firmly 
established  by  their  connected  application  to  the  whole 


^  6.]  INTRODUCTION.  5 

Bible  and  to  its  separate  parts.  If  the  introduction  is 
treated  in  the  genuine  scientific  spirit  of  criticism,  it  has, 
then,  the  further  advantage  of  awakening"  the  spirit  of 
historical  investigation  in  theology. 

§  6. 

ITS  HISTORY  AND   LITERATURE. 

Biblical  introduction,  in  its  present  extent  and  charac- 
ter, is  the  product  of  modern  critical  Protestant  theology, 
to  which,  however,  an  enlightened  Catholic  gave  the 
first  impulse.  The  several  earlier  works,  both  in  regard 
to  their  extent  and  scientific  spirit,  answer  but  imperfect- 
ly the  demands  now  made  upon  the  science.* 

"  [^^ Keeping  awake"  (Wach  zu  erhalten)  is  the  author's  literal  meaning; 
but  it  would  scarcely  apply  in  America,  where  this  spirit  is  only  known  to 
be  feared.] 

^  The  following  books  do  not  properly  belong  here :  —  Jlugustinus,  De  Doc- 
trina  christ.  lib.  iv.  vol.  iv.  of  the  Benedictine  ed.  Cassiodoi-us,  De  Institut. 
divin.  Script,  in  Garefs  ed.  of  his  works ;  Rotom.  1679,  2  vols.  fol.  Adriani, 
Isagoge  sacr.  Literarum,  Op.  Dav.  Hoeschelii;  Aug.  Vind.  1602,  4to. ;  also 
published  in  the  Critici  Sacri,  ed.  Frankfort,  vol.  vii.  We  must  rather  place 
here  jHm'Kits,  De  Partibus  Legis  div.  1.  ii.  in  Gallandi  Biblioth.  Patr.  xii.  p.  77, 
sqq.,  ed.  Bas.  1546 ;  published  by  itself,  Par.  1556 ;  Frcf.  1603,  8vo.  The 
first  Introduction  to  the  Bible  is,  Biblioth.  sac.  a  Sixto  Senensi  ex  prsecipuis 
cath.  Ecclesiae  Auctoribns  collecta ;  Venet  1566,  2  vols.  fol.  P^d.  F.  Hay. 
L.  B.  1591,  4to. ;  Neap.  1742.  Mich.  Waltheri  Officina  bibl.,  in  qua  perspicue 
videre  licet,  quae  scitu  cognituque  maxime  sunt  necessaria  de  sac.  Scriptura 
in  gen.  et  spec,  de  libris  eius  canon.,  apocryph.,  deperditis,  spuriis ;  Lips. 
1636,  4to. ;  improved  ed.,  Viteb.  1668,  4to.  J.  H.  Hottingeri  Thesaurus 
philologicus,  sive  Clavis  Scripturae  sac. ;  Tigur.  1649 ;  ed.  3,  1696,  4to.  J. 
Leusdeni  Philologus  Ebr^us  ;  Ultraj.  1656 ;  ed.  5,  1696,  4to.  Ej.  Philologus 
EbrcBO-mixtus  ;  ib.  1663;  ed.  4,  Bas.  1739,  4to.  Briani  Waltoni  Angli  Appa- 
ratus bibl.,  ed.  Heidegger ;  Tigur.  1673,  fol.  (in  London  Polyglot  1657.) 
Br.  TFaltoni  in  Biblia  Polyglotta  prolegomena,  prsef.  est  J.  A.  Datlie  ;  Lips. 
1777, 8vo.,  [ed.  London,  1827,  ed.  Wranglmm,  2  vols.  8vo.]  J.  H.  Heideggeri 
Enchiridion  bibl.  ff^o,u*'i/Mo»'txoj';  Tigur.  1681 ;  ed.  Jen.  1723, 8vo.  S(dom.van 
Til,  Opus  analyt.  comprehendens  IntroducL  in  sac.  Scripturam  ad  Heideg- 
geri Enchirid.  bibl.  concinnatam;  Traj.  1720,  2  vols.  4to. ;  Bas.  1722.  Aug. 
Pfeifferi  Critica  sac. ;  Dresd.  1680 ;  em.  et  auct.  a  J.  M.  JVagelin,  Altd,  1751, 8vo. 


6  INTRODUCTION.  [^  6. 

Richard  Simon  first  conceived  the  idea  of  an  historico- 
ciitical  introduction  to  the  Bible.  This  he  also  divided 
into  an  introduction  to  the  Old  and  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment." 

These  studies  then  began  to  be  cultivated  in  Ger- 
many, in  part,  with  great  diligence,  although  they  had 
still  to  contend  with  the  spirit  of  illiberal  adherence  to 
traditional  dogmas.*  Finally,  under  the  hands  of  J.  G. 
Eichhorn'  and  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,*^  with  the  coopera- 

"  Histoire  crit.  du  Vieux  Test  par  le  Pere  R.  Simon,  Pretre  de  la  Con- 
greg.  de  I'Oratoire ;  Par.  1678,  4to. ;  Rott  1685,  4to.  Historia  crit.  Vet. 
Test  Autliore  R.  Swione.  E  Gallico  in  Lat  versa  a  JYatcdi  Alb.  de  Versi, 
juxta  Exemplar  impressum  Parisiis  ;  Amst  1681,  4to.  Comp.  Sentimens  do 
qiielques  Theologiens  d'Hollande  sur  I'Hist  crit  du  V.  T. ;  Amst  1685, 
12mo.  Histoire  crit.  du  Texte  du  N.  T.,  ou  I'on  ^tablit  la  V6rit6  des  Actes 
6ur  lesquels  la  Relig.  chrcit  est  fondle ;  Rott  1689, 4to.  Hist  crit  des  Ver- 
sions du  N.  T. ;  Rott  1690,  4to.  Nouv.  Observations  sur  le  Texte  et  les 
Verss.  du  N.  T. ;  Par.  1659,  4to.  Histoire  crit  des  principaux  Commenta- 
teurs  du  N.  T. ;  Rott  1693,  4to.  Rich.  Simons  krit  Hist  des  Textes  d, 
N.  T.  Aus  d.  Franzciz  ubers.  v.  Cramer  u.  m.  AnmerkL  begleitet  v.  Sem- 
ler;  Halle,  1776.  jR.  S.  krit  Hist  der  Uebers.  d.  N.  T.  Aus  d.  Franz, 
iibers.  v.  Cramer,  m.  Anmerkk.  v.  Semler ;  Halle,  1777-80,  2  vols.  Both 
works  are  united,  with  the  title  Rich  Simons  krit  Schr.  iiber  das  N.  T. 
3  Bde.  Comp.  H.  Maji  Examen  Hist  crit.  N.  T.  a  R.  Simone  vulgatse ; 
Giss.  1694 ;  4  ed.  n.  auct,  Frcf.  ad  M.  1699,  1708,  4to.  For  the  liistory  and 
literature  of  this  work,  see  jE.  F.  K.  Rosenmiiller,  Handbuch  f.  d.  Litteratur  d. 
bibl.  Kritik  u.  Exeg.  1,  p.  115,  sq.  p.  157,  sq. 

*  [I  have  paraphrased  the  author's  language,  — "  Geist  der  Unkritik" 
spirit  of  uncriticism,  —  but  I  think  the  sense  is  preserved.] 

J.  G.  Carpzovii  Introductio  ad  Libros  can.  V.  T. ;  Lips.  1721 ;  ed.  3,  1741, 
4to.  Ej.  Critica  sac.  V.  T. ;  ib.  ]728,4to.  Introduct  ad  Lectionem  N.  T.  in 
qua  quae  ad  rem  crit,  Historiam,  Chronolog.,  Geograph.,  varias  Antiquitt., 
tam  sacr.  quam  profan.,  pertinent,  exponuntur.  Auctore  J.  G.  Piiiio  ;  Lips. 
1704, 12mo.  Ubcrius  digessit,  auxit  novasque  dissertt  adjecit  C.  G.  Hoffmann  ; 
ib.  1737, 8vo. ;  ed.  nov.  em.  1764.  J.  W.  Rinnpm,  Commentatio  crit.  ad  Librr. 
N.  T.  in  genero,  cum  pra?f.  J.  G.  Carpzovii ;  Lips.  1730,  4to. ;  ed.  2,  1757. 

'  Einl.  in  d.  A.  T.  3  Thle. ;  Lpz.  1780-83  ;  3  A.  1803 ;  4  A.  1823,  24. 
Einl.  in  d.  apokryph.  Schr.  d.  A.  T. ;  Lpz.  1795. 

'^  Einloit,  in  d.  gottl.  Schr.  d.  n.  Bundes  ;  Gott  1750 ;  4  s.  verm.  u. 
geiind.  A.  1788,  4to.,  2  Bde.  Einl.  in  die  gottl.  Schr.  d.  A.  B.  1  Th. ;  Hamb. 
1787,  4to. 


^  6.]  INTRODUCTION.  7 

tion  of  Semler,"  they  attained  the  form  in  which  they 
have  been  embraced  by  the  moderns,  and  in  part  further 
developed.*  A  reaction  took  place  on  the  side  of  the 
Catholic  Church  in  the  conservative  criticism  of  J.  Jahn" 
and  J.  L.  Hug.*^  But  Bertholdt'  followed  in  the  path 
which  had  been  broken  by  Eichhorn  and  others.  He 
reunited  all  parts  of  the  Bible,  and  treated  it  as  a  whole  in 
his  Introduction.^  The  love  of  hypothesis,  which  pre- 
vails to  excess  in  his  book,  is  opposed  to  the  more  valua- 
ble negative  criticism.  K.  A.  Credner-  has  attempted 
to  satisfy  the  want  of  positive  results  in  regard  to  the 

"^  Apparatus  ad  liberalem  Vet  Test  Interpretationem ;  Hal.  1773.  Appar. 
ad  liberal.  N.  T.  Interpretat ;  Hal.  1767.  Abhandl.  von  freier  Untersuch. 
des  Kanon.  4  Thle. ;  Halle,  1771-75.  Vorbereit  zur  theolog.  Hermeneutik. 
St  1-5,  1760-69. 

*  J.  Fr.  Gate,  Entwurf  z.  Einl.  ins  A.  T. ;  Halle,  1787.  /.  Babor,  allg.  Einl. 
in  die  Schr.  d.  A.  T. ;  Wien,  1794,  G.  L.  Bauer,  Entwurf  e.  histor.-krit  Einl. 
in  d.  Schr.  d.  A.  T. ;  Numb.  u.  Altd.  1794 ;  3  verb.  A.  1806.  Ej.  Crit  sac.  V.  T. ; 
Lips.  1795.  /.  Chr.  W.  Augiisti,  Grundriss  e.  hist-lirit  Einl.  ins  A.  T. ; 
Lpz.  1806 ;  2  A.  1827.  H.  K.  A.  Hdnlein,  Handb.  d.  Einl.  in  d.  Schr.  d. 
N.  T.  2  Thle. ;  Erl.  1794-1802 ;  2  verb.  A.  1802-1809,  3  Thle.  His  Lehrb. 
d.  Einl.  etc. ;  Erl.  1802.  G.  F.  Griesinger,  Einl.  in  d.  Sclm  d.  N.  B. ;  Stuttg. 
1799.  J.  E.  Chr.  Schmidt,  hist-krit.  Einl.  ins  N.  T. ;  Giess.  1804,  5,  2  Thle. 
J.  G.  Eichhorn,  Einl.  in  d.  N.  T. ;  Lpz.  1  Thl.  1804 ;  2  A.  1820 ;  2  u.  3  Thl. 
1810-14,  4to.;  5  Thl.  1827. 

"  Einl.  in  d.  gbttl.  Biicher  d.  A.  B. ;  Wien,  1793 ;  2  g.  umgearb.  A. ; 
Wien,  1802,  3,  2  Thle.  in  3  Bden.  Introduct  in  Libros  sac.  Vet  Feed,  in 
Compendium  red. ;  ib.  1805 ;  ed.  2,  1815.  Ackermann,  Introd.  in  LibiT.  V, 
Feed. ;  ib.  1826. 

"*  Einl.  in  d.  Biicher  d.  N.  T. ;  1  Hft.,  Bas.  1797.  Einl.  in  die  Schr.  d. 
N.  T.;  Tiib.  1808,  2  Thle.;  2  A.  1821 ;  3  A.  1826;  [translated  by  G.  Wait, 
Lond.  1827,  2  vols,  8vo. ;  also  by  D.  Fosdick,  Andover,  1836,  1  vol,  8vo., 
with  notes  by  Prof.  Stuart.]  Feilmoser,  Einl,  in  d,  BB.  d.  N,  B. ;  Tub,  1830, 
2  Aufl, 

'  Histor.-krit  Einleit  in  samt  Kanon  und  Apoc,  Schriften  d.  A,  und  N,  T. ; 
Erlangen,  1812-19,  6  parts, 

■''  [That  is,  Bertholdt  did  not  treat  each  of  the  three  divisions  of  the  Bible, 
mentioned  in  §  3,  independently,  but  proceeded  as  if  those  divisions  did  not 
exist] 

^  Einleitung  in  d,  N.  T, ;  1  Thl.  1,  2  Abth,  1836.  Beitrage  zur  Einleit 
in  d.  bibl.  schriften,  1  B.  1832 ;  2,  1838. 


^  INTRODUCTION.  [^  6. 

New  Testament,  while  H.  A.  Ch.  Havernik"  has  sought 
to  reestablish  the  old  prescriptive  opinions  respecting 
the  Old  Testament. 

"  Handbuch  der  hist-krit.  Einleitung  in  d.  A.  T. ;  1  Thl.  1  Abth.  1836 ;  2 
Abth.  1837;  2  Thl.  1  Abth.  1839.  Hengstenberg  preceded  him,  in  this 
direction,  by  his  Beitriige,  1  Thl.  1831 ;  2  Thl.  1836 ;  3  Thl.  1839.  Pa- 
reau,  Institut.  interpret.  V.  T.,  (Traj.,  1822,)  contains  much  that  pertains  to 
tlie  department  of  introduction  to  the  Bible.  CelUrier,  Introduction  a  la 
Lecture  des  Livres  saints,  1  vol.  Anc.  Test. ;  Geneva,  1832.  Home,  Intro- 
duction to  the  Critical  Study  of  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  2  vols.  Lond.  1821,  sec- 
ond edition.  [Mr.  Home's  work  has  reached  several  editions  in  America.  We 
have  used  that  of  1825,  4  vols.  8vo.,  and  sometimes  tlaat  of  1836, 2  vols.  8vo. 
Huvernik,  1.  c,  very  properly  calls  it  an  unimportant  book.  It  is,  however, 
a  tolerable  compilation  of  much  that  has  been  written  in  Latin  and  English 
on  one  side  of  the  subject.  It  has  little  merit,  except  as  a  guide  to  tlie  lit- 
erature of  the  subject.  It  takes  the  stand-point  of  superstitious  reverence  for 
the  letter.  The  work  of  CelUrier  is  still  less  valuable.]  See  other  less  im- 
portant works  in  Rosenmiillcr's  Handbuch,  vol.  i.  p.  96,  sqq.  Bertholdt,  1.  c. 
vol.  i.  p.  29,  sqq.  These,  as  well  as  other  single  contributions  to  introduc- 
tion to  the  Bible,  will  be  referred  to  in  their  proper  place. 


PART  I. 

OF    THE    BIBLE-COLLECTION    IN    GENERAL. 


BOOK  I. 


NAME,    CONSTITUENT    PORTIONS,   ORDER,    AND 
DIVISION  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


^7. 

NAMES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 

[A  considerable  time  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  the 
sacred  writings  of  the  Jews  —  much  as  they  differ  in 
respect  to  their  authors,  subjects,  and  the  dates  of  their 
composition  —  were  spoken  of  as  a  whole ;  but  they 
were  not  mentioned  under  one  definite,  general  title  be- 
fore the  first  century  after  Christ.  Before  this  time,  the 
writers  yet  remaining  fluctuate  between  the  most  gen- 
eral terms  —  "The  Book,"  "The  Scriptures,"  in  its 
loftiest  sense,  or  the  "  Holy  Scriptures."  Sometimes 
they  indicate  the  whole  collection  by  the  parts  of  which 
it  is  composed,  that  is,  by  the  "  Law,  Prophets,  and 
Psalms  :  "  sometimes  they  speak  of  credible  books  writ- 
ten by  the  prophets,  sometimes  of  sacred  writings  pre- 
served in  the  temple,  and  sometimes  of  a  sacred  library. 
Afterwards,  following  the  example  of  Paul,  as  some 
suppose,  these  writings  were    named    the    "old   cove- 

VOL.    I.  2 


10  NAME,    CONSTITUENT    PORTIONS,    ORDER,        \^  7. 

nant,"  in  opposition  to  the  new,  which  Christ  had  estab- 
lished."] 

1.  General  names  :  —  the  Bible,  tcc  Bi(^lia,  so.  &ela  ;* 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  the  Scriptures,  uQa  yQafi],  duXa 
yoacp7)j  ayia  yQccfpi],  Bibliotheca  Sancta/ 

2.  Names  of  the  Jirst  part :  —  -i^^,  Chaldec  i^^^s,  ^^^^^, 
V  /'(?«?')'  (2  Pet.  i.  20 ;)  ai  yqacpai,  (Matt.  xxii.  29, 
Acts  xviii.  24 ;)  ^ipri  --^ns,  yQafpal  ayiai,  (Rom.  i.  2  ;) 
iti)a  yqauj-iata,  (2  Tim.  iii.  15.)  ^'ip^.  ^^PP.,  ^^^?^,  "^a 
(■ii('iUa,'^  n:iin/  6  7'6/ioc,  (John  xii.  34 ;)  o  v6aoc,  oi 
7i{)0(pi]i:aL  xal  ol  ijialuoi,  (Luke  xxiv.  44  ;)  6  v6iJog  vmI 
oi  TiQOfpriTat,  (Acts  xxviii.  23  ;)^  o  vof^ioq  ymX  ol  7H)0(pritaL 
nal  %a  alia  fit  [-ilia,  (Prologue  to  Jesus  of  Sirach;) 
tj'i'iby']  nsa'isrj  ^t;o  nsjs-ij^i  u^^^y^  (see  ^10;)  J*';!^'?^!,  (com- 
pare Neh.  viii.  8,  where  the  word  is  used  in  a  different 
sense ;)  ^'^P??  ^''5,  f^^J'^PlP'?,  [)t['iUa  Tijg  naXaiac,  dia&iyAiiQ, 
VetusTestamentum  sive  Instrumentum/  Compare  i)  na- 
ha  diad^TfAi],  in  2  Cor.  iii.  14,  with  fti(Slog  ir^g  dLaOifAijq 
(1  Mac.  i.  57  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  2,  in  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion.) It  has  this  name  on  account  of  the  biblical  view 
of  the  religious  life  as  a  bond  (communion)  between 
God  and  man. 

3.  Names  of  the  second  part:  — ^nuy.QV(pa,''  sc.  ^//iXm, 

"  See  Eichhorn,  <§,  6. 

''   Chrysostom,  in  Suiceri  Thesaurus  cccl.  p.  (\9i\ 

"  Martianay,  Prolog,  i.  §  1,  in  divin.  Bibliotheca  Hieronymi.  Isidor. 
Origg.  iv.  3. 

"^  Chrysostom,  in  Suicer.  p.  C87. 

"  Sanhedr.  fol.  91,  col.  2. 

-''  Josephiis  de  Maccab.  §  18. 

*■'   TerluUian  adv.  Marcion,  iv.  1.     .iugustin.  De  Civitato  Dei,  xx.  4. 

''  Originally  nn/jytQVffog  meant  secret,  hidden,  (geheim,)  i.  e.,  in  part  myste- 
rioiis,  {Epiphanius,  Hsrres.  i.  3,  on  the  Apocalypse,)  and  in  part  kept  secret, 
not  pxiblicly  nsed.  [Chigcn,  Ep.  ad  Africanum,  Opp.  i.  p.  26.  See  be- 
low,   §  25.     Epiphanius,  Ilseres.  xxx.   3,  who  derives  the  word  dno   xfj; 

xqdmrjg 8ib  ovdh  iv  tw  daguj'  dcvsTbdijcrav,  sc.  libri  apocryphi.  —  De 

Pond,  et  Mens.  Opp.  ii.  p.  162.)      Hence    it  was  called  by  the  Jews  t^isa 


^  8.]  AND    DIVISION    OF    THE    BIBLE.  H 

Libri  apocrjphi  Veteris  Testamenti,  is  commonly  used 
bjthe  Protestants  who  follow  Jerome;  [-ii^lia  avayiyvioa- 
TibuEva,  libri  ecclesiastici,  (§  26,  27,)  deuterocanonici, 
(§'28.) 

4.  Names  of  the  third  part:  —  ro  tvayythov  vml  6 
aTzoOToXog,  to  tvayytXiv-ov  y:al  ro  anooroXixov  (^  21, 
23)  i]  xuLvi)  diad^TfAi],  Novum  Testamentum  sive  In- 
strumentum. 

CONSTITUENT  PORTIONS   OF  THE   FIRST  AND  SECOND  PART. 

The  Old  Testament  is  a  collection  of  books,  in  the  He- 
brew and  Chaldee  languages, — which  were  accounted 
inspired  and  holy  by  the  Jews,  and  the  ancient  Christian 
church,  containing  all  the  relics  of  the  Hebrew  Chaldee 
literature  up  to  a  certain  period.''     The  Chaldee  passages 

{Hottinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  515;)  tlien  from  the  secret  writings  of  the  heretics, 
(Clemens  Alex.  Strom,  lib,  i.  p.  304,  B.  ed.  Sylburg.  Origen,  Prol.  ad  Cant. 
0pp.  iii.  p.  3G.  Comni.  in  Matt.  p.  91G.  See  §  25,  below,  note,)  it  was 
called  by  tlie  synonymous  term  voifo;,  and  ipFvSsnlyQuqog,  in  opposition  to 
the  canonical  writings  of  the  Catholics.  [IrencBus,  i.  20.  Clem.  Alex. 
Strom,  lib.  iii.  p.  437,  §  24.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Cateches.  iv.  JllJianasius, 
Ep.  fest.  in  §  26.  Augustin.  cont.  Faust,  xxii.  79,  §  27.)  Jerome,  Ep.  7, 
ad  Lajtam,  says,  Apocrypha  sciat  non  eorum  esse,  quorum  titulis  prcenotan- 
tur.  Finally,  Jerome  calls  it  the  uncanonical  books  added  by  the  LXX.  See 
Gieseler,  in  tlieol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1830,  H.  2,  p.  142,  sqq. 

Conf.  Chr.  B.  Micliaelis,  Diss.,  qua  Nomina,  Numerus,  Divisio  et  Ordo  Li- 
brorum  Vet.  Test,  sistuntur ;  Hal.  1743.  Hotiinger,  Thes.  p.  88,  sqq.  p.  5J5. 
TVahncr,  Antiqq.  Ebr.  cap.  i.  §  G.  Prilii  Introduct.  ed.  Hoffmann,  cap.  i.  Ja- 
blonsky,  Disp.  de  genuina  et  propria  Significatione  ttj;  dLaO-r\xrjg  in  Scriptis 
N.  T.;  Frcf.  1733 ;  Opusc.  ed.  te  Water,  vol.  ii.  p.  393.  Rosenmuller,  De  Vo- 
cabuli  dia&rj-Arj  in  Libris  N.  T.  vario  Usu  ;  Erlangen,  1778, 4to.  Kuiniil,  Ru- 
pert, et  VeltJiusen,  Com.  Tlieol.  vol.  ii.  Sta7ige,  Theol.  Symmikta,  vol.  ii.  p.  221. 

"  See  the  Hebrew  translation  of  the  Aramaic  passages  of  Daniel  in  Ken- 
nicott's  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  in  the  Chaldaicorum  Danielis  et 
Esroe  Capitum  Interpretatio  Heb.  ed.  J.  L.  Schultz  ;  Hal.  1782, 8vo.  [Huetitis 
(Dera.  Evang.  Prop.  iv.  p.  472)  thinks  the  Hebrew  portion  of  Daniel  not 
genuine,  but  that  Daniel  wrote  the  whole  book  in  Chaldee ;  but  Bertholdt 


12      NAME,  CONSTITUENT  PORTIONS,  ORDER,    [^  9. 

are  Daniel  ii.  4— vii.  Ezra  iv.  8— vi.  18.    vii.  12— 2G, 
and  Jeremiah  x.  11." 

The  apocryphal  books  are  the  product  of  the  later 
Jewish  literature,  in  part  translated  into  Greek,  and  in 
part  originally  written  in  that  language.  They  were 
recognized  as  sacred  neither  by  the  Jews  nor  by  the 
ancient  Christian  church. 


§9. 

CONSTITUENT  PORTIONS  OF  THE  THIRD   PART. 

The  New  Testament  contains  the  genuine  writings  — 
which  are  accounted  inspired  and  sacred  —  of  the  first 
Christian  times,  composed  by  the  apostles  of  Christ,  and 
their  assistants  and  pupils,  relating  to  the  history  and 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  religion.* 

says  this  cannot  be  maintained.  Ubers,  d.  B.  Daniel,  i.  50,  sqq.  Einleit, 
p.  136.] 

"  For  the  writings  which  are  lost,  see  §  12,  Hottmger,  Tlies.  Phil.  p. 
532.  M'oJf,  Bibliotheca  Heb,  pt  ii.  sect.  4,  p.  211,  sqq.  [See  Appendix, 
article  A.] 

''  Touching  the  question  why  Christ  wrote  nothing,  see  /.  G.  MichaeUs, 
ExercitatL  Theol.  Philol. ;  Lug.  Bat.  1757.  Exercitat.  i.  de  eo  num  Christus 
Dominus  aliquid  scripserit,  &c.  See  Christ's  epistolary  correspondence 
with  Abgarus,  prince  of  Edessa,  in  Eusebnis,  H.  E.  i.  13.  The  authenticity  of 
this  work  is  defended  by  Richard  Montacut,  Origg.  Eccless.  vol.  i.  p.  61 — 6-3. 
Grabe,  Spicilegium  Patr.  vol.  i.  p.  1 — 12.  Cave,  Hist.  Litter,  i.  2.  On  the  other 
hand,  see  JVat.  Alexander,  H.  E.  sec.  i.  pt.  i.  diss.  iii.  p.  2C6.  Lou.  Ell.  Du- 
piii,  Nouv.  Bib.  dcs  Auteurs  Eccles.  i.  1,  sq.  Jac.  Basnage,  Hist,  des  Juifs, 
i.  7.  Thorn.  Iftig,  Ileptas  Dissertt.  i.  cap.  1,  (§  14,)  p.  106.  Fah-icius,  Codex 
Apocryphus,  N.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  320  ;  iii.  p.  516.  Sender,  De  Christi  ad  Abgar.  Epis- 
tola  ;  Hal.  1768,  4to.  Compare  Michaelis,  ubi  sup.  p.  14,  sqq.  [Eusebius  pro- 
fesses to  have  taken  the  letters  from  the  archives  of  Edessa,  and  to  have 
translated  tliem  literally  from  the  Syriac  language,  "  opportunely,"  as  he 
hopes,  and  "  not  without  profit"  p.  44,  sqq.  ed.  Boston,  1836.] 

On  the  other  apocryphal  writings  of  Christ,  see  Augustin.  De  Consensu 
Evangelist,  i.  9.  Michaelis,  1.  c.  p.  25,  sqq.  Fabricius,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  308.  J. 
^ndr.  Sell  mid,  Diss,  de  Epistolis  Coelo  et  Inferno  delatis  ;  Helmst.  1709. 


§   10.]  AND    DIVISION    OF    THE  BIBLE.  13 

§  10. 

ORDER  AND   DIVISION   OF  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  division  of  the  Old  Testament  into  the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  (other  sacred)  Writings,  ri^iin,  c^s'^ii, 
and  ti'^^iti?,"  a  division  which  occurs  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, (^  7,)  is  as  old  as  the  collection  itself. 

Josephus  (cont.  Apion.  i.  8.  See  below,  ^  15)  differs 
from  this,  and  gives  a  division  according  to  the  contents, 
though  it  can  scarcely  be  true  that  he  follows  the  manu- 
scripts, as  some  have  maintained.*  [This  division  into 
three  parts,  says  Eichhorn,  was  observed  in  the  copy 
used  by  the  Son  of  Sirach,  by  Philo,  and  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament ;  only  they  had  no  general  name 
for  the  third  part,  —  the  Hagiographa.  Therefore  these 
writers  must  sometimes  call  the  book   which  contained 

"  Kimchi,  Pr£Bf.  in  Psalm.  Maimonides,  More  Neb.  ii.  45,  p.  317.  Elias,  in 
Tisbi,  says  the  word  ^^^  means  "ivritten  by  tlie  Holy  Spirit."  Compare 
Aharhanel,  Prsef.  in  Proph.  prior,  fol.  2,  c.  L  Carpzov,  Int  i.  p.  25,  and  Crit. 
sac.  p.  135.  Augusti,  Einleit,  (•§  49,)  [thinks  that  in  the  N.  T.  Genesis  is  taken 
for  the  first,  and  2d  Chronicles  for  the  last  book  of  the  O.  T.]  Bertholdi,  1.  c. 
vol.  i.  p.  81,  and  Daniel,  vol.  i.  p.  89,  [tliinks  the  term  Q"i2^ril3  means  "newly 
introduced  into  the  canon,"  and  supposes  this  part  Vas  added  after  the  rest 
was  completed.]  See  §  14.  The  Greeks  call  these  books  yqucpeXa  and  'Ayi6- 
yqaffu.  JEpiphanius,  Hseres.  xxix.  7,  0pp.  i.  p.  122,  ed.  Petav.  De  Pond,  et 
Mens.  c.  iv.  Opp.  ii.  p.  162.    Suiceri,  Thesaurus  eccles.  sub  voce. 

i>  Such  is  the  opinion  Storr  maintains  in  his  disputation  on  the  most  an- 
cient division  of  the  books  of  the  O.  T.  in  Paulus,  neu.  Rep.  ii.  p.  225.  On 
the  other  side,  see  Eichhon},  §  8.  Storr,  likewise,  too  confidently,  connects 
the  following  passage  of  Philo  with  that  of  Josephus,  and  considers  it  deci- 
sive of  the  question :  "  Taking  nothing  with  them,  neither  drink,  nor  food, 
nor  any  of  those  things  necessary  to  the  wants  of  the  body,  but  only  laws, 
and  oracles  uttered  [deancaO^ifTa)  by  tlie  prophets,  and  hymns,  and  the  other 
[writings]  by  which  knowledge  and  piety  grow  up  together  and  become 
perfect."  Philo,  de  Vita  contempl.  p.  893,  ed.  Frankfort;  /iirjdbP  ela-AoulZoi'- 
leg,  fi-q  noruy,  /u-fi  anior,  /mjdiii  ribv  uVmv  oaa  nqbg  Tci,  jov  aa/nuiog 
Xqelai;  Ctvayxala,  (klldc  ro/iwvg  y.al  I6yia  dsojTiaO'ii'ra  diu  ngopfijT&p  y.ul 
vui'Ovg  y.al  rri  &lla  oTc  iniaii^fir]  xal  svaifieia  avva-v^ovrai  xotl  TEleiovvxut,. 


14  NAME,    CONSTITUENT    PORTIONS,    ORDER,        [^   10. 

the  psalms,  by  the  title  "  The  Psalms,"  as  it  is  done 
in  the  New  Testament ;  sometimes  they  designated  it 
as  the  "  writings  of  a  moral  character,"  as  the  Son  of 
Sirach,  Philo,  and  Josephus,  have  done.  The  first  trace 
of  the  name  Hagiographa  occurs  in  Epiphanius." 

It  may  seem  that,  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  the  Jews 
comprised  many  books  in  the  Hagiographa,  which  were 
formerly  reckoned  among  the  Prophel.s  ;  for  Josephus 
places  but  four  books  in  the  Hagiographa,  and  enumer- 
ates thirteen  Prophets,  while  Jerome,  the  Talmud,  and 
the  modern  Jews,  count  eight  Prophets  and  nine  books 
in  the  Hagiographa.  But  without  doubt  this  division  of 
Josephus  is  a  classification  entirely  peculiar  to  himself. 
It  was  not  based  on  the  order  of  the  books  in  the  manu- 
scripts, but  on  the  custom  of  his  time,  which  ascribed  to 
the  prophets  all  the  books  that  were  not  written  by 
poets,  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term.  But,  though  this 
division  was  generally  received  among  the  Jews  and 
Christians,  it  was  yet  inadequate,  as  the  Jews  them- 
selves were  aware ;  for,  since  not  only  writers  who  had 
published  predictions  came  under  the  rubric  of  prophets, 
but  also  the  authors  of  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  and 
the  Kings,  they  were  forced  to  distinguish  between 
prophets  of  the  first  and  second  class.* 

The  term  t'^s^ns  (ivritings)  was  subsequently  trans- 
lated yQcccfJtXa  and  ayi6yQacpa,  (sacred  writings.) 

Abarbanel  dwells  long  in  explaining  this  subject,  and 
thinks  the  foundation  and  reason  of  the  distinction  made 
between  these  writings  and  the  other  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  arise  from  the  different  mode  and  measure 
of  divine  influence  by  which  they  were  composed.  The 
Jewish  teachers  assign   to  Moses  the  highest  degree, 

"  Panario,  p.  58.  ^  See  Eichhorn,  §  8. 


^    10.]  AND    DIVISION    OF    THE    BIELE.  15 

for  God  spoke  face  to  face  with  him,  that  is,  without 
the  intervention  of  visions  and  dreams.  They  ascribe 
the  next  degree  to  the  prophets,  who,  either  sleeping  or 
waking,  without  the  aid  of  the  senses,  heard  a  voice 
speaking  to  them,  and  in  their  ecstasy  saw  prophetic 
visions.  The  lowest  degree  of  divine  influence,  which 
they  call  the  Holy  Spirit,  (•■::5Tipn  m^,)  they  concede  to 
those  God-inspired  men,  wiio,  with  their  senses  remain- 
ing in  perfect  action,  spoke  like  other  men.  Though  they 
did  not  rejoice  in  dreams  or  prophetic  visions,  they, 
nevertheless,  felt  the  divine  Spirit  resting  upon  them, 
exciting  and  suggesting  words  of  praise  and  penitence, 
or  tlioughts  relating  to  divine  or  civil  affairs,  and  they 
spoke  or  wrote  them.  All  the  prophets  prophesied 
through  an  opaque,  but  Moses  through  a  transparent 
glass,  says  a  Jewish  writer."] 

The  Prophets  were  divided  into  the  early  Prophets, 
(u'^sim'i  ^''*''?^,)  that  is,  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings ;  and  the  later  Prophets,  (Q^^ios^ 
^''?^^n^0  that  is,  the  Prophets  properly  so  called.  These 
latter  were  subdivided  into  the  major,  (QiVn^,)  namely, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel ;  and  the  minor  Prophets, 
(^Qistop,)   (jl^log  %(bv  diodtxa  7TQ0(fijT(bv,  TO  dwdtxajiQo- 

(frVlTOV. 

Under  the  Writings  (o'^is^n:?)  were  included  the  "  five 
books,"  (nib?9  t:i^n,)  Canticles,  Ecclesiastes,  Ruth,  Lam- 
entations, and  Esther,  and  the  poetic  books,  (i^^^^,) 
namely.  Job,  Proverbs,  and  the  Psalms,  to  which  the 
Christians  add  Canticles  and  Ecclesiastes.*  Daniel  be- 
longs to  the  Hagiographa  ;  only  the  Christians,  who  in 
this  adhere  to  the  division  of  the  Septuagint,  place  this 
book  among  the  Prophets  " 

"  See  Carpzov,  1.  c.  pt  i.  p.  25,  and  crit.  s.  pt.  i.  iv.  2. 

*"  Epiphanius,  Pond,  et  Mens.  1.  c.     Gregor.  Nazianz.  Carm.  xxxiii. 

'  See  Stange,  in  Keil  and  Tzschirners,  Analekt.  vol.  i.  p.  28,  sqq. 


16  NAME,    CONSTITUENT    PORTIONS,    ORDER,       [^    10. 

The  enumeration  of  the  books  is  various ;  that  of  Jo- 
sephus,  (^  15,  note,)  and  of  the  Christians,  (§  25,  note,) 
who  make  the  number  twenty-tivo,  is  based  upon  the 
Hebrew  alphabet ;  but  it  was  never  current  among  the 
Palestine  Jews,  and  scarcely  among  the  Greek  Jews. 
By  the  arrangement  of  the  Septuagint,  the  book  of  Ruth 
is  united  with  that  of  Judges,  and  the  Lamentations  of 
Jeremiah  with  his  prophecies. 

The  number  twenty-seven  is  still  more  artificial. 
(^  26,  note,  and  Epiphanius  in  ^  27.)  The  Talmud  is 
not  exact  in  its  enumeration  of  twenty-four  books.  If 
we  are  to  count  the  five  books  of  Moses  separately,  the 
books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles,  the  twelve 
minor  Prophets,  and  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  we  shall 
have  thirty-nine  books.  After  the  five  books  of  Moses, 
the  others  were  thus  enumerated  in  Baba-Bathra,"  — 
Prophets,  Joshua  and  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings, 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  and  the  twelve,  (Proph- 
ets ;)  in  the  Hagiographa,  Ruth,  Psalms  and  Job,  and 
Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles  and  Lamenta- 
tions, Daniel  and  the  books  of  Esther,  Ezra  and  Chroni- 
cles. 

In  regard  to  the  order  of  succession  among  the  single 
books,  the  Alexandrian  translators,  the  Fathers,  and  Lu- 
ther, differ  from  the  Jews.  Among  the  Jews  themselves, 
the  Talmudists  and  the  Masorites,  the  German  and  the 
Spanish  manuscripts,  differ  from  one  another.  The  Tal- 
mud places  Isaiah  after  Ezekiel  for  this  reason.  Since 
the  books  of  the  Kings  end  in  the  Desolation,  and  Jere- 
miah is  entirely  occupied  with  the  Desolation,  —  since 
Ezekiel  begins  in  the  Desolation,  and  Isaiah  is  totally  oc- 
cupied with  consolation,  —  for  this  reason  they  connected 

°  Fol.  14,  c.  2. 


§   ]0.]  AND    DIVISION    OF    THE    I3IBLE.  17 

the  Desolation  with  the  Consolation,  and  the  Consola- 
tion with  the  Desolation." 

From  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  xlv. — xlix.,  scarcely 
any  thing  can  be  derived  to  favor  the  present  arrange- 
ment of  the  biblical  books.  Something  is  rather  to  be 
gained  from  Luke  xxiv.  44,  and  Matt,  xxiii.  35 ;  whence 
it  appears  the  Psalms  held  the  first,  and  Chronicles  the 
last  place  in  the  Hagiographa.* 

[The  order,  says  Eichhorn,  in  which  the  writings  of 
the  Old  Testament  follow  one  another,  seems  to  be  very 
old ;  for  Sirach  the  Elder  mentions  the  famous  men  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  same  order  they  succeed  one 
another  in  our  editions.  He  makes  one  book  of  the 
twelve  minor  Prophets,  and  places  it  after  Ezekiel.  Ac- 
cording to  the  New  Testament,  in  the  manuscripts  used 
at  Christ's  time,  the  Psalms  began  the  series  of  the  Hag- 
iographa,  and  the  Chronicles  finished  the  entire  collec- 
tion ;  for  Jesus  (Luke  xxiv.  44)  calls  the  Hagiographa 
the  Psalms,  which  was  the  first  book  of  that  collection  ; 
and  when  he  wished  to  select  the  first  and  the  last  in- 
stances of  the  shedding  of  innocent  blood,  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament,  he  selects  the  case  of  Abel  from 
Genesis,  as  the  first  book  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
that  of  Zacharias  from  the  book  of  Chronicles,  as  the 
last  of  all.     (Matt,  xxiii.  35.)'=] 

"  Elias  Levita,  Preef.  iii.  ad  Masor.  Hammas,  p.  46,  of  Semler''s  version. 
Buxtorf,  Tib.  c.  11.  Hottinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  454.  Comp.  §  110.  See  Carp- 
zov,  1.  c.  pt  iii.  p.  88.  Eichhorn,  vol.  i.  §  7,  p.  50,  4th  ed.,  and  Bertholdt,  vol. 
i  p.  74,  note  5.  [The  latter  thinks  the  Talmudic  order  of  tlie  Prophets  above 
given  is  the  oldest.] 

''  According  to  Hcivernik,  (1.  c.  p.  78,)  Luke  called  the  whole  Ilag^iographa 
by  the  name  Psalms,  not  because  the  Psalms  occupied  the  first  place  in  the 
collection,  but  on  account  of  the  poetical  character  of  several  parts  of  the 
Hagiographa,  just  as  Philo  (De  Vita  cont.  §  13)  and  Josephus  (cont.  Ap. 
§  23)  call  it  the  Hymns. 

"  See  Eichhorn,  §  7. 

VOL.    I.  3 


18  NAME,    CONSTITUENT    PORTIONS,    ORDER,       [§11. 

The  apocryphal  books  were  at  first  only  an  addition 
to  the  Alexandrian  version.  The  Protestants  were  the 
first  to  regard  them  as  a  whole  by  themselves.  In  the 
Vatican  Codex  they  succeed  in  the  following  order  :  — 
The  books  of  Tobit  and  Judith  are  between  Nehemiah 
and  Esther  ;  the  Book  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus  fol- 
low the  Song  of  Songs  ;  Baruch  and  the  Lamentations  of 
Jeremiah  succeed  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah;  and  the 
four  books  of  Maccabees  close  the  canon. 

In  the  Alexandrian  Codex,  Tobit,  Judith,  the  two 
books  of  Esdras,  and  the  four  books  of  Maccabees,  follow 
immediately  after  the  book  of  Esther ;  and  the  Book  of 
Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus  follow  after  the  Song  of 
Songs.     Luther's  arrangement  is  peculiar  to  himself. 


%ii. 

ORDER  AND   DIVISION   OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT. 

From  the  manner  in  which  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  collected  arose  the  division  into  the 
Gospels  (t6  tiiayyOdov)  and  the  Epistles,  (6  a.7i6oTo- 
Aog,)  to  which  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse were  added.  By  this  means  the  books  which 
would  be  properly  divided  into  historical,  epistolary  and 
didactic,  and  prophetic  books,  are  united  together.  The 
apostolic  Epistles  were  subsequently  divided  into  the 
Pauline  and  the  Catholic  ;  whilst  earlier,  the  First  Epis- 
tle of  Peter  and  the  First  of  John  were  united  in  the 
same  collection  with  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 

With  respect  to  their  acknowledgment  by  the  church, 
they  are  divided  into  ouoloyovnava  (the  acknowledged) 
and  ai'Tihy6utva,  (the  contested.)     See  §  24. 


^    11.]  AND    DIVISION    OF    THE    BIBLE.  19 

In  reference  to  their  authors,  they  are  divided  into  the 
writings  of  the  apostles,  and  of  their  assistants.  The 
arrangement  of  particular  books  is  various  in  various 
manuscripts;"  but  the  present  order  is  established  by 
ancient  w^itnesses.* 

"  See  Marcion's  arrangement  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  in  Epiphanius, 
Haeres.  xlii.  9,  0pp.  i.  p.  310.     Schmidt,  Einleit.  in  N.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  215. 

''  Pritii,  Introductio,  p.  17.  Rumpczi,  Com.  crit.  p.  96,  sqq.  Sixtus  Senen- 
sis,  Bibliodieca  sac.  lib.  i.  p.  44.  He  divides  the  N.  T.  into  Libros  legates, 
hisloriales,  sapientiales,  and  prophetales.    Rumpm,  p.  97. 


BOOK  II. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  ORIGIN   OF    THE  COLLECTION 
OF  SCRIPTURE;    or,  HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 


CHAPTER   I. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   COL- 
LECTION ;  OR,   HISTORY  OF    THE   JEWISH    CANON. 


[^  12,  a. 

IMPORTANCE   AND   VALUE   OF  THE   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

He  who  would  despise  these  relics  of  the  Hebrews 
because  they  proceed  from  a  nation  which  had  not 
reached  a  high  degree  of  culture,  and  had  made  but  a  one- 
sided use  of  their  powers  of  mind,  must  either  be  un- 
grateful for  their  great  merit,  or  so  unjust  as  to  demand 
the  full  light  of  high  noon  from  the  first  faint  glimmer- 
ings of  morn.  Much  rather  would  every  free,  impartial 
reader,  who,  in  general,  has  a  taste  for  the  writings  of  such 
early  times,  and  of  a  country  so  foreign  to  us  as  Asia,  be 
powerfully  attracted  to  them  by  their  contents  and  their 
old  and  original  spirit;  and  he  will  never  lay  them  down 
without  reverence  and  gratitude  for  the  fortunate  destiny 
which  has  preserved  them.  Even  if  we  do  not  contem- 
plate them  as  ancient  memorials  of  the  most  rational 
religion  of  antiquity,  in  which  we  can  trace  the  gradual 


§  12,  «.]   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  COLLECTION.        21 

ascent  of  the  human  understanding  to  the  sublime  doc- 
trine of  one  God,  and  its  struggle  against  polytheism  for 
so  many  centuries,  —  there  are  yet  various  points  of  view 
from  which  the  writings  of  the  Jews  appear  as  works  of 
the  greatest  value. 

In  them  we  find  a  rich  collection  of  genuine  poesies 
of  nature,  which  every  lover  of  the  poetic  art  will  hold 
in  high  esteem ;  and  amongst  them  we  discover 
kinds  of  poetry  of  which  nothing  of  similar  excellence 
has  survived  amid  the  far  richer  relics  of  Greek  lit- 
erature. 

At  a  certain  stage  of  spiritual  culture  all  nations  have 
had  oracles ;  and  who  had  more  of  them  than  the  oldest 
Greeks?  Yet  only  inconsiderable  fragments  survive  of 
their  wealth  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  a  great  number  of 
perfect  prophecies  from  the  Hebrew  oracles  still  remain. 

Who  would  not  exchange  a  part  of  Pindar's  hymns 
of  victory  for  his  lost  religious  odes,  since  almost  all  of 
the  Grecian  songs  of  this  character  have  perished  ? 

From  the  Hebrews  we  have  primitive,  old  temple- 
songs,  in  a  solemn,  devout,  and  highly-original  tone. 
These  and  other  kinds  of  Hebrew  poetry  no  man  has 
ever  read  with  poetic  feelings,  and  with  the  power  of 
recalling  old  times,  without  falling  in  love  with  the  an- 
cient Oriental  spirit  which  they  breathe,  and  rejoicing, 
at  the  same  time,  that  we  have  specimens  of  at  least  one 
Oriental  nation,  although  they  are  so  very  imperfect. 

Besides,  the  Hebrew  histories  and  poems,  considered 
as  primitive  works  of  the  human  mind  in  Asia,  are  the 
most  valuable  documents  for  the  history  of  human  prog- 
ress ;  for,  if  we  follow  tradition  and  other  evidence,  the 
human  race  originated  in  the  regions  of  Asia,  and  long 
developed  itself  there. 


22  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^   12,  U. 

They  contain,  then,  not  only  the  history  of  the  He- 
brews, and  pictures  of  their  civihzation  and  culture,  but, 
by  the  collection  of  legends  from  the  old  world,  they 
serve  as  contributions  to  the  history  of  all  mankind. 
Where  else  were  there  such  legends  to  be  found  for  the 
childhood  of  the  human  race,  which  is  lost  in  the  mists 
of  time ;  or  where  are  the  memorials  which  transmit  to 
us  so  beautiful  a  philosophy  on  the  origin  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  or  which,  in  general,  could  supply  the  place  of 
the  Hebrew  collection  ?  Our  history  of  the  states  and 
people  of  antiquity  is  still  poor ;  but  how  much  poorer 
would  it  be,  in  valuable  and  credible  accounts,  with- 
out the  written  relics  of  the  Hebrews !  If  it  would  not 
lead  us  too  far  from  the  design  of  this  work,  the  value 
of  the  existing  fragments  of  the  Hebrew  literature 
might  be  placed  in  the  clearest  light  by  enumerating  the 
great  amount  of  the  most  various  information  which  lies 
scattered  in  them,  and  for  which  we  must  thank  them 
only.  Goguet  and  Gatterer  have  made  a  fine  beginning 
thereto,  and  these  may  serve  instead  of  any  remarks 
of  mine. 

Instead  of  ridiculing  and  despising  these  flowers,  still 
living,  of  the  Oriental  spirit,  we  will  rather  thank  Prov- 
idence for  them :  instead  of  bewailing  that  time,  which 
has  passed  lightly  over  so  much  literary  rubbish,  has 
destroyed  so  many  of  the  most  valuable  treasures  of  lit- 
erature, to  which  these  Hebrew  monuments  most  cer- 
tainly belong,  we  will,  on  the  contrary,  wonder  that 
even  so  much  as  we  possess  has  escaped  the  destroying 
tooth  of  time. 

The  Egyptians,  the  Chaldees,  the  Phoenicians,  and  He- 
brews,—  the  four  oldest  nations  of  the  civilized  world, — 
for  a  considerable  time  played  together  remarkable  parts 


^  12,  a.]    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  COLLECTION.        23 

on  the  theatre  of  nations,  and  left  for  their  posterity 
many  written  monuments  of  their  civilization  and  ancient 
splendor.  None  of  them  has  passed  through  a  course  of 
greater,  or  more  completely  destructive,  changes  than 
the  Hebrews.  According  to  the  old,  savage  custom,  they 
were  torn  from  their  dvv^ellings  by  their  haughty  con- 
querors, and  transplanted  to  another  land.  Here,  dis- 
persed among  foreign  tribes,  they  ceased  for  a  time  to 
be  a  prosperous  nation.  Yet  of  the  former,  all  but  their 
name  has  vanished  ;  while  the  latter  have  outlived  their 
state,  and,  though  scattered  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
have  yet  been  known  for  thousands  of  years.  From  the 
former,  either  all  the  monuments  of  their  literature  have 
perished  to  the  last  fragment,  or  only  single  melancholy 
ruins  survive,  which  in  nothing  diminish  the  loss  of  the 
rest ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  from  the  latter  there  is  still 
extant  a  whole  library  of  authors,  so  valuable  and  ancient 
that  the  writings  of  the  Greeks  are  in  comparison  ex- 
tremely young."  In  Egypt,  Phoenicia,  and  Babylon,  as 
well  as  among  the  Hebrews,  all  higher  knowledge,  and 
the  most  valuable  writings,  were  deposited  in  the  lap  of 
the  priest  for  preservation  ;  and,  in  all  the  states,  litera- 
ture followed  the  fortunes  of  the  sacerdotal  order  and 
the  temple.  Soon  as  the  priesthood  was  removed,  all 
the  inherited  knowledge  of  the  nation,  all  the  fruits  of 
their  diligence,  and  the  experience  of  many  centuries,  at 
once  shared  their  fate :  when  the  temples  were  de- 
stroyed, all  the  works  of  literature  were  buried  in  their 
fall.  The  preservation  of  so  many  and  such  important 
fragments  of  the  Hebrew  literature  under  circumstances 


"  [This  statement  must  be  received  with  some  qualification,  as  the  date 
of  the  early  writings  of  both  Greeks  and  Hebrews  is  still  uncertain.] 


24  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^12,6. 

of  this  nature,  and  sometimes  far  worse,  which  this  na- 
tion has  passed  through,  seems  certainly  a  miracle  of 
time."] 

^  12,  6. 

ORIGIN   AND   PROGRESS   OF    HEBREW   LITERATURE   TILL 
THE   EXILE. 

The  peculiar  legends  of  the  Hebrews  ascribe  the  first 
use  of  the  art  of  writing  among  them  to  Moses,*  the 
founder  and  lawgiver  of  their  state  ;  but  we  must  not 
ascribe  to  him  the  foundation  of  a  Hebrew  literature, 
but  only  a  feeble  commencement  of  it ;  perhaps  he 
wrote  some  of  its  laws. 

Formerly,  it  was  unexplained  from  what  source  Mo- 
ses, while  in  Egypt,  could  have  received  the  Shemitish 
writing  character,  unless,  with  Jahn  and  Bleek,''  we 
adopted  the  very  improbable  hypothesis,  that  nomadic 
nations,  like  the  Hebrews  at  that  time,  were  acquainted 
with  the  art  of  writing  long  before  the  time  of  Moses. 
Even  if  Abraham  had  brought  it  from  Mesopotamia  with 
him,  it  would  have  been  lost  by  his  posterity.  [Jahn,  iu 
the  passage  referred  to,  and  in  ^  85  of  the  3d  edition  of  the 
English  version  of  his  Latin  work  on  Hebrew  Archaeol- 
ogy, maintains  that  books  and  writings  were  well  known 
in  the  time  of  Moses.  De  Wette,  on  the  contrary,  in  his 
ArchfKoloo;y,  (^^  276,)  says,  "Although  the  origin  of  the 
art  of  writing,  on  account  of  its  high  antiquity,  remains 

"  See  Elchhorn,  §  2. 

*  Dc  Welle,  Ileb.  und  jiid.  Archaol.  <^  277.  Jahn,  Archiiol.  vol.  i.  p.  415. 
Hartmann,  hist.  krit.  Forchungen  iiber  die.  BB.  Moses,  p.  588.  The  pvoofg 
whicli  Hdvernik  brings  tor  the  use  of  writing,  in  the  times  of  Moses  and  be- 
fore iiini,  are  tal^en  from  the  Jeliovistrc  passages,  which  refer  later  customs 
to  earlier  tim''s.  ^  150. 

'  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1831,  p.  495. 


^   12,  6.]      THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  25 

generally  in  obscurity,  yet,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  certain 
that  most  of  the  Asiatic  as  well  as  the  Occidental  alpha- 
bets are  descended  from  that  of  the  Phoenicians,  or  may 
be  referred  to  it.  Now,  it  is  nearly  indifferent  whether 
the  first  sources  of  this  writing  are  to  be  sought  among 
the  Phoenicians,  or,  which  is  more  probable,  among  the 
Babylonians ;  for,  in  either  case,  the  Hebrews  are  found 
near  the  source.  Then,  in  the  following  section,  he  says, 
before  Moses  there  is  no  trace  of  a  written  document, 
not  even  in  the  legends  which  embellish  the  simple 
facts.  With  Moses  we  find  the  use  of  writing  in  in- 
scriptions, particularly  on  the  tables  of  the  law,  on  the 
ornaments  of  the  High  Priest,"  and  on  Mount  Ebal;* 
though  the  latter  is  suspicious.  Then  larger  written 
documents  are  ascribed  to  Moses,"  which  is  not  improb- 
able, since  he  received  his  education  in  Egypt.] 

In  the  heroic  age  which  succeeded  that  of  Moses, 
legends  and  songs  indeed  flourished,  but  there  was  little 
or  no  literature.  This  first  originated  with  the  prophetic 
schools  of  Samuel,  from  which  we  see  arise  the  flowers  of 
gnomic  and  lyric  poetry  and  of  prophecy.  At  that  time, 
the  Mosaic  laws  and  historical  relations  which  are  con- 
tained in  the  Pentateuch,  —  in  the  document  Elohim,  for 
example,  and  perhaps  also  in  the  original  sources  of  the  Je- 
hovistic  document,  —  and  referred  to  in  Numbers  xxi.  14, 
(rnrri  r,i?aq^?9  i5D,)were  first  written  down,  as  were  like- 
wise collections  of  songs  like  the  ^"^'^n  "iso.  (Josh.  x.  13. 
2  Sam.  i.  18.)  The  kings  had  an  historian,  "i''^1>?, 
(2  Sam.  viii.  16.  1  Kings  iv.  3,)  who  kept  the  annals,  out 


"  Ex.  xxviii.  9,  36.  ^  Deut.  xxvii.  12,  sq.    Josh.  viii.  32. 

'  Ex.  xvii.  14.  xxiv.  4.  Num.  xxxiii.  2.  Deut.  xxxi.  34.  Josh,  xviii.  9. 
XXIV.  26.  [See  the  Biblical  Repository  for  July,  1839,  Article  iv.,  « The 
Origin  of  Writing  in  Greece  and  Egypt,"  by  the  translator.] 

VOL.    I.  4 


26  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  13. 

of  which  extracts  seem  to  have  been  made.  Perhaps 
the  historical  works  referred  to  in  the  books  of  Kings 
were  of  this  character. 

Our  present  four  books  of  Moses  originated  in  the 
time  of  Solomon  ;  perhaps  also  the  book  of  Joshua  at 
the  same  time  ;  the  books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  still 
later.  Written  oracles  of  the  prophets  began  with  the 
eighth  century  before  Christ.  The  Salomonic  Proverbs 
were  collected  durijig  the  time  of  Hezekiah  and  before 
it.  The  Pentateuch  was  completed  about  the  time  of 
.losiah.  Thus  the  Law,  —  the  first  division  of  the  Old 
Testament,  —  and  the  first  half  of  the  second  division, 
came  into  being. 


%i 


o. 


PROGRESSIVE   FORMATION   AND   COMPLETION   OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT   COLLECTION   AFTER  THE   EXILE. 

After  the  exile,  also,  the  Hebrew  literature  continued 
to  advance.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  wrote  memoirs, 
prophets  predicted,  and  poets  sung.  At  the  same  time, 
a  zeal  for  collecting  sprang  up,  and  sought  to  preserve 
the  relics  of  the  ancient  literature.  As  the  last  of  the 
prophets  departed  with  Malachi,  their  writings  were 
collected  together ;  aiid  thus  arose  the  second  half  of 
the  second  division  of  the  Old  Testamc^nt,  as  a  complete 
whole.  It  was  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  Pseudo- 
Daniel,  as  it  appears  from  ix.  2."  About  this  time,  or  a 
little  earlier,  the  Pentateuch  and  the  collection  of  histor- 
ical writings  may  have  received  the  last  touch,  and  have 
been  brought  to  their  present  form  ;  so  that  the  first  and 

"  Von  Lertf^crke,  in  loc,  on  the  other  side,  Hdvernik,  in  loc,  and  Hitzig, 
in  Studien  und  Krit.  for  1830,  p.  153. 


^  13.]  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  27 

second  division  was  closed  some  time  after  Nehemiah. 
(Compare  2  Maccab.  ii.  13,  ^  14.) 

A  beginning  had  been  made  of  a  collection  of  Psalms  ; 
but  it  was  not  completed,  for  compositions  of  this  char- 
acter continued  to  be  made.  Considerably  late,  per- 
haps at  the  end  of  the  Persian  period,  the  Jews  turned 
their  hand  to  the  formation  of  the  third  division,  —  the 
collection  of  the  Hagiographa,  —  which,  however,  long 
remained  changeable  and  open,  so  that  even  the  book 
of  Daniel,  which  was  not  written  till  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees,  could  find  a  place  in  it. 

The  reception  of  historical  and  of  some  prophetical 
writings  into  the  Hagiographa  can  be  explained  only  on 
the  hypothesis  that  both  the  former  collections  were 
closed  when  this  was  begun.  Such  is  the  opinion  of 
Bertholdt;"  but  Hengstenberg  has  revived  the  dogmatic 
view  of  the  later  Jews,  according  to  which,  the  threefold 
division  of  the  Old  Testament  is  made  to  rest  on  the 
different  relation  in  which  their  authors  stood  to  God.' 
According  to  Havernik,  it  is  not  the  contents  or  the  in- 
spiration, but  the  composition  of  the  book,  which  makes 
the  difference.  The  second  division  was  written  by 
prophets ;  that  is,  by  men  of  the  proper  prophetic  calling;. 
The  third  was  composed  by  men  who  were  inspired,  it 
is  true,  but  yet  were  not  prophets.  But  the  Lamenta- 
tions of  Jeremiah  stand  in  the  way  of  this  theory.'' 

°  L.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  70,  sqq.    [See  Spinoza,  Tractat.  Theol.  polit.  ch.  8,  9.] 
''  Authentic  der  Daniel  und  Integritat  des  Sacharjah,  p.  25,  sqq. 
'  Havernik,  1.  c.  p.  62,  sq. 


28  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  14. 

%   14. 

PRETENDED  AUTHORS  OF  THE  COLLECTION  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

Christian  writers  have  hitherto  adduced  a  pretended 
Jewish  tradition  "  to  this  effect  —  that  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  collected,  and  the  canon  formed 
bj  Ezra,  and  the  other  members  of  the  great  synagogue, 
("n^i-i-in  ^p,3|,)  whose  very  existence  is  a  matter  of  his- 
toric doubt.*  But  this  tradition  vanishes  as  soon  as 
we  examine  the  ground  on  which  it  rests.  It  is  not  a 
subject  for  refutation.  [Still  it  may  be  interesting  to 
know  the  opinion  of  other  distinguished  scholars  on  this 
point.  Eichhorn  thinks  the  books  were  collected  im- 
mediately after  the  return  from  exile,  and  were  laid  up 
in  the  temple  library.  He  thinks  Ezra  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  a  library,  which  was  enlarged  by  Nehemiah,  and 
other  Hebrew  patriots.  He  then  proceeds  to  treat  of 
the  great  synagogue,  and  says,  certainly  no  considerate 
investigator  of  history,  who  is  possessed  of  a  sense  of  his- 
torical probability,  can  believe,  in  their  full  extent,  the 
fables  of  the  later  Jews  relating  to  the  great  synagogue, 
and  to  the  learned  and  unlearned  vocations  of  that  body. 
Rau  has  incontestably  proved  that  most  of  the  accounts 
we  have  relating  to  it  bear  marks  of  improbability. 
But  the  whole  legend  must  have  proceeded  from  some 
actual  fact.  In  the  accounts  of  it,  as  in  most  legends 
of  the  kind,  does  not  a  real  fact  lie  at  the  bottom,  —  one 

"  See  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  c.  10.  Hottmger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  111.  Leusdcn, 
Phil.  Hob.  diss.  iK  /.  H.  Majus,  Diss.sel.  de  Scrip.,  diss.  3.  Bartolocci,  Bib. 
Rabb.  iv.  3.  Huet.  Demonstrat.  evang.  prop.  4,  p.  535.  Carpzov,  Introd.  pt. 
i.  p.  1 — 9.  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  2,  and  the  aiitliors  he  cites.  Haver- 
nik,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  pp.  1,  39,  sqq. 

*  F.  E.  Rau,  De  Synagoga  magna,  (Traj.  172G,  12mo.,)  pt,  ii.  p.  1,  c,  2, 
p.  66,  sqq. 


^  14.]     THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  COLLECTION.         29 

which  Jewish  fancy  has  converted  into  a  romance  ?  I 
will  not  venture,  he  adds,  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the 
Jews'  fables  about  their  great  synagogue,  if  it  is  cred- 
ible that  they  are  based  on  a  real  foundation.  If  such 
is  the  case,  then  some  confusion  of  persons  may  have 
taken  place.  The  great  synagogue  is  said  to  have 
closed  with  Simon  the  Just,  whom  their  traditions  make 
a  contemporary  of  Alexander  the  Great.  But,  in  that 
case,  he  lived  so  early  that  the  last  book  in  the  Jewish 
canon  cannot  be  referred  to  his  time.  But  if  Simon  the 
Just  has  been  confounded  with  Simon  the  Maccabee, 
the  high  priest,  then  the  canon  may  have  been  closed 
under  his  direction.  But  why  should  we  take  all  this 
trouble  to  explain  the  origin  of  silly  fables,  by  means  of 
hypotheses,  in  favor  of  which  no  formal  and  satisfactory 
arguments  can  be  adduced  against  such  as  wish  to  con- 
test the  matter  ?  But  confusions  of  this  kind  might 
easily  take  place,  since  no  one  knows  any  thing  of  the 
great  synagogue  before  the  date  of  the  book  Pirke 
Abot.  This  will  be  admitted  by  those  who  ascribe  to  it 
the  greatest  antiquity,  namely,  that  of  the  Mishna,  220 
A.  C.  Consequently,  the  legends  of  the  great  synagogue 
were  first  collected  from  Jewish  tradition  at  a  recentdate." 
Bertholdt  refers  the  "company  of  scribes"  (ovvayioy)) 
yQauuateiov,  1  Mace.  vii.  12)  to  the  great  synagogue, 
and  says,  (p.  69,)  "  Ezra  seems  actually  to  have  laid 
the  first  foundation  of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament ; 
for,  if  he  did  nothing  towards  collecting  the  sacred  books 
of  his  nation,  it  cannot  be  explained  how  this  legend 
came  into  existence.  It  cannot  be  explained  as  a  mere 
fiction  of  the  later  Jews,  for  it  is  quite  natural  that  Ezra, 
who  had  found  the  Jewish  colony  in  a  very  neglected 

"  Eichhorn,  §  5. 


30  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [§  14. 

State,  should  establish  a  permanent  college  of  distin- 
guished and  learned  men  at  Jerusalem,  under  the  name 
of  the  great  synagogue.  The  only  fiction  is  the  story 
which  the  later  Jews  give  us  of  the  personal  continu- 
ance of  this  college.  When  they  limit  the  office  of 
this  body  to  collecting  the  sacred  writings,  they  make  a 
mistake.  The  college  founded  by  Ezra  was  the  gen- 
eral and  complete  reorganization  —  as  well  political  as 
religious  and  ecclesiastical — of  the  nation,  now  reassem- 
bled in  their  native  land.  The  business  of  seeking  after 
the  sacred  writings,  and  of  collecting  them  into  a  whole, 
belonged  to  a  particular  deputation,  or  congregation  — a 
special  committee  of  that  body.  We  may  then  find  a 
trace  of  it  in  history.  It  is  called  '  company  of  scribes,' 
(Mace.  1.  c. ;)  and  then,  for  the  first  time,  it  becomes 
clear  why  Ezra  has  the  surname  of  '  the  scribe,'  (Ezra 
vii.  6.)  His  other  labors  for  the  firm  establishment  of 
the  religious  constitution  of  his  newly-animated  people 
render  it  probable,  that  he  shared  the  labor  of  this  '  com- 
pany of  scribes,'  and  bore  the  name  of  '  scribe,'  in 
common  with  all  its  members,  or  that  he  alone  received 
this  title  because  —  as  it  is  probable  —  he  presided  over 
the  body.""] 

The  following  passages  from  the  rabbins  [have  been 
relied  upon  as  proof-texts,  but  they]  contain  not  a  word 
relating  to  the  collection  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Hieros.  Megill.  fol.  74,  col.  2.  Rabbi  Phinehas  said, 
"  Moses  appointed  the  formula  of  prayer  that  it  might  be 

"  [The  above  remarks  of  Bertlioldt  have  little  value  in  themselves,  but  are 
inserted  because  they  present  the  opinion  of  English  and  American  scholars 
generally,  in  its  most  favorable  light.  Dr.  Palfrey  (Academical  Lectures, 
vol.  i.  p.  2] )  calls  tlie  whole  story  a  Jewish  fiiblo,  but  is  perhaps  in  en-or, 
V'licn  he  makes  the  Talmudic  use  of  the  phrase  include  "the  leading  men 
lor  the  first  three  centuries  after  the  return  from  Babylon."  Abarbanel  and 
others  make  the  assembly  consist  of  onn  hundred  and  twenty  men.] 


^  14.]         thl:  old  testament  collection.  31 

said,  '  O  God,  great,  mighty,  and  terrible'  (Deut.  x. 
17.)  Jeremiah  said,  '  O  God,  great  and  mighty,' 
(xxxii.  18,)  but  he  did  not  say  'terrible.'  Daniel  said, 
(ix.  4,)  '  O  God,  great  and  terrible.'  Why  did  he 
not  say  '  mighty '  ?  But  after  the  men  of  the  great 
synagogue  had  arisen,  they  restored  the  magnificence  to 
its  pristine  rank,  so  that  it  might  be  said,  '  O  our 
God,  God  great,  mighty,  and  terrible,  who  keepest  the 
covenant  and  mercy.'  " 

i3abylon  Joma.  fol.  69,  col.  2.  "  Why  were  they  called 
'  men  of  the  great  synagogue  '  ?  Because  they  restored 
the  canon  to  its  primitive  state." 

Babylon  Megill.  fol.  20,  col.  2.  "  By  this  tradition  we 
have  learned  from  the  men  of  the  great  synagogue,  that 
where  it  is  said  '^n'^i,  it  presages  nothing  but  evil." 

Pirke  Abot.  c.  1.  "  Moses  received  the  law  from  Sinai, 
and  gave  it  to  Joshua  ;  Joshua  to  the  elders  ;  the  elders 
to  the  prophets ;  the  prophets  to  the  men  of  the  great 
synagogue.  They  uttered  these  precepts  :  '  Be  slow  in 
judgment.  Make  many  disciples.  Make  a  hedge  for 
the  law.'  " 

The  following  passages  state  merely  the  fact  that 
some  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  reduced  to  wri- 
ting by  the  great  synagogue. — Baba-Bathra,  fol.  14, 
c.  2;  fol.  15,  c.  1.  "And  who  wrote  them?  Moses 
wrote  his  own  book,  and  the  sections  Balaam  and  Job. 
Joshua  wrote  his  own  book,  and  eight  books  of  the 
law.     Samuel  Avrote  his  book,  and  Judges,  and   Ruth. 

David  wrote  the  book  of  Psalms Jeremiah  wrote  his 

book,  and  the  book  of  Kings,  and  Lamentations.  Heze- 
kiah  and  his  college  wrote  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Canticles, 
and  Ecclesiastes.  The  men  of  the  great  synagogue 
wrote  Ezekiel,  the  twelve  prophets,  Daniel,  and  the  book 


32  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^   1  L. 

of  Esther.     Ezra  wrote  his  book,  and  the  genealogy  in 
the  books  of  Chronicles,  so  far  as  himself."" 

Bertholdt  and  Havernik's  explanation  of  the  word 
nw,  (written,)  as  meaning  inserted  in  the  canon,  finds 
no  support  in  the  foregoing  extracts,  as  Havernik  main- 
tains, and  is  answered  by  the  connection  in  which  the 
w^ord  stands,*  and  by  the  following  declaration  of  Raschi, 
and  the  connection  in  which  it  stands.  "  The  men  of  the 
great  synagogue  wrote  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  for  he  proph- 
esied in  the  exile.  But  I  do  not  know  Avhy  Ezekiel 
himself  did  not  wiitc,  unless  for  the  reason  that  it  is  not 
permitted  that  prophecy  should  be  written  out  of  the  Holy 
Land.  Therefore,  after  they  returned  thither,  they 
wrote  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  and  in  like  manner  the  book 
of  Daniel,  —  who  had  lived  as  an  exile,  —  and  also  the 
book  of  Esther,  and  the  twelve  Prophets.  These  proph- 
ets did  not  write  down  their  predictions,  for  they  were 
short.  Then  came  Haggai,  Zachariah,  and  Malachi,  and, 
when  they  saw  the  Holy  Spirit  was  taken  away,  —  for 
they  w^ere  the  last  prophets,  —  they  wrote  down  their 
predictions,  and  added  these  short  predictions  to  them, 
and  made  a  larger  volume,  lest  it  should  perish  on  ac- 
count of  its  sniallness."  Rabbi  Gedaliah  (in  Shalsha- 
leth  Hakkabala,  fol.  21)  ascribes  a  recension  of  the  text 
to  the  great  synagogue,  and  Elias  the  Levite  (1.  c.  p. 
45)  speaks  distinctly  of  the  compilation  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament by  the  same  body. 

"  [All  of  the  above  extracts  from  the  Talmud,  except  the  two  last,  are 
omitted  in  the  last  edition  of  the  author ;  but,  as  they  have  some  value  in  the 
estimation  of  many  scholars,  I  have  tliought  proper  to  retain  tliem.  See 
more  of  similar  nature  in  Buxtorf's  Tiberias,  p,  94,  sqq.] 

*  What  would  this  mean,  Jlnd  Joshua  "■inserled  in  the  canon'"  {^t\'2)  eight 
verses  in  the  law'? 

'  See  Aurivill,  De  Synagoga  vulgo  dicta  magna,  ni  his  Dissertations,  edit- 
ed by  /.  H.  Michaelis,  p.  145. 


^    14.]  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  33 

The  legend  of  the  wonderful  restoration  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  Ezra  deserves  scarce  any  re- 
gard." [A  tradition,  which  has  gained  ground  even 
in  modern  times,  asserts  that,  by  various  accidents,  the 
sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews  had  become  corrupt. 
Some  passages  had  been  added,  others  had  been  lost. 
But  Ezra  was  inspired  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the 
text.  He  expunged  all  that  was  spurious,  and  restored 
what  was  genuine.''] 

The  account  in  2  Mace.  ii.  13,  which  attributes  the 
collection  of  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  to  Ne- 
hemiah,  is  more  credible  in  itself;  but,  from  the  character 
of  the  source  whence  it  proceeds,  it  is  of  little  value." 
However,  it  is  certain  that  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment collection  came  gradually  into  existence,  and  as  it 
were  of  itself,  and,  by  force  of  custom  or  public  use,  ac- 
quired a  sort  of  sanction.  The  hypothesis  that  archives 
were  kept  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  receives  powerful 
support  from  the  customs  of  the  ancients."^ 

[Bertholdt,'  however,  enlarges  upon  this  hypothesis, 

"  4  Ezra  xiv.  Iren(Bus  adv.  Haeres.  iii.  25.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  p.  329. 
Tertullian,  De  Cult  Fem.  i.  p.  3,  (in  §  25.)  Theodoret,  Prsef.  Com.  in 
Cant  Chrysostom,  Homil.  viii.  in  Ep.  ad  Heb.  Jlugustinus,  De  Mirabilibus 
Script,  ii.  33.  Comp.  Buxtorf,  1.  c.  p.  103.  ^D'Herhclot,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  iii.  p.  728. 
See  below,  p  47. 

*  [See  the  authorities  in  Buxtorf,  1.  c.  c.  xi.] 

'  Kal  itg  y.aTa^ttXXduerog  ^i3hod-i\xTjV,  iTiiavvr^yays  ret  tilqI  tu)/' 
({uaiXicop  xal  TXQorfirjTVtv,  >tal  ret  jov  /iuvld  xai  iniciToXag  8ci(JiMmv  tteQI 
&va&7]fi(jiT0jr.  Movers,  De  utriusque  recens.  Vatic.  Jerem.  Indole  et  Origi- 
ne,  p.  49,  by  ju  tt&qI  iwp  ^uadiwy,  understands  the  Chronicles  (?),  and  by 
T(i  rov  duvld,  the  first  book  of  Psalms,  [Ps.  i. — xlv.,]  and  by  the  intaTolag, 
&c.,  the  book  of  Ezra. 

^  Huseb.  Prffip.  Evang.  i.  9.  Epiphan.  De  Pond,  et  Mens.  c.  4,  Opp.  ii. 
p.  162.  Joan.  Damasc.  De  orthod.  Fide,  iv.  18.  Augustin.\.  c.  ii.  33.  Huet. 
1.  c.  p.  542.  1.  H.  Majtis,  Diss.  sel.  2.  Eichhom,  §  3,  p.  21.  Ilgen,  Urkun- 
den,  Vorrede,  p.  viii.  Corrodi,  (Beleucht  d.  Gesch.  d.  Bibelkanons,  vol.  L 
p.  26,)  and  Bauer,  (Einleit  p.  32,)  have  justly  appreciated  this  theory. 

'  L.  c.  p.  406,  sqq. 

VOL.    I.  5 


34  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  14. 

to  a  great  extent,  and  utters  some  extravagant  opinions. 
He  says,  "According  to  the  common  opinion,  Moses, 
and  the  authors  of  the  other  canonical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  deposited  their  autographs  in  the  ark  of  the 
covenant ;  or,  at  least,  the  priests,  who  were  the  guardi- 
ans of  the  national  hterature,  as  in  other  nations  of  the 
old  world,  took  charge  of  them,  so  that  one  copy  of 
every  new  literary  or  national  work  was  taken  for  the 
holy  place  in  the  temple.  The  analogy  of  ancient  times 
speaks  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  holy  wri- 
tings in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  does  not  permit 
us  to  deny,  that  after  the  time  of  Ezra,  or  the  second 
temple,  the  sacred  national  writings,  collected  by  him, 
were  preserved  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  no  facts  which  warrant 
the  assertion,  or  even  the  belief."  "  Now,  Epiphanius 
(1.  c.  iv.)  says  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  never  deposited  in  the  ark  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  know,  from  Josephus,  that  Titus  found  the  canonical 
books  there.  Irenaeus  thinks  the  sacred  books  per- 
ished, with  the  temple  and  city,  at  the  burning  of  the 
first  temple.  He  supposes,  also,  there  were  two  sacred 
national  archives  in  the  first  temple,  of  which  Augustine 
speaks  expresslj'.  This  supposition  lies  at  the  founda- 
tion of  a  story  which  circulated  among  the  Jews  a  consid- 
erable time  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  which  contra- 
dicts the  statement  of  Irenaeus  and  Augustine,  namely, 
that  Jeremiah  had  secured  the  temple  copy  of  the  holy 
writings  before  the  temple  was  burned.  (2  Mace.  ii. 
4 — 8.)  But  there  is  sufficient  ground  for  believing  that 
this  opinion  —  that  there  was  a  collection  of  all  the  holy 
writings  of  the  nation  in  the  first  temple  —  arose  from 
the  state  of  things  while  the  second   temple  was  stand- 


^  14.]  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  35 

ing."  He  thus  states  the  argument  against  the  exist- 
ence of  a  temple  library  before  the  captivity  :  — 

"  The  example  of  other  nations  of  antiquity  could  have 
little  influence  on  the  Hebrews  before  the  exile,  for 
they  were  completely  isolated.  Before  the  exile,  —  when 
they  were  thrown  among  the  Babylonians  and  Chalde- 
ans, and  Assyrians  and  Medes,  —  they  could  not  become 
acquainted  with  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  institutions 
of  other  nations ;  and  it  may  therefore  be  assumed,  with 
greater  probability,  that  the  arrangement  of  Ezra,  Ne- 
hemiah,  and  the  succeeding  members  of  the  '  company 
of  scribes,'  to  make  faithful  and  accurate  copies  of  all 
the  sacred  national  writings,  and  to  deposit  them  in  the 
temple,  had  its  origin  in  the  acquaintance  with  the  man- 
ners and  customs  of  other  nations,  which  they  first  made 
during  the  exile."  This  is  more  probable  than  the  opin- 
ion that  he  only  restored  the  previous  sacred  archives  of 
the  temjjle.  For,  if  all  the  sacred  writings  had  been 
deposited  in  the  temple  anterior  to  the  destruction  of 
the  state,  accounts  of  that  important  literary  and  nation- 
al depot  must  occur  here  and  there  in  the  old  writings 
still  extant.     But  there  is  no  allusion   to  its  existence." 

This  latter  statement  is  wholly  wrong ;  for  the  fol- 
lowing passages  speak  distinctly  of  the  preservation  of 
legal  writings  before  the  exile,  viz.,  1  Sam.  x.  25, 
where  Samuel  deposits  the  constitution  of  the  king- 
dom in  a  holy  place  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  26,  where  a  com- 
mand is  given  that  the  Law  be  kept  in  the  ark. 
But  compare  1  Kings  viii.  9,  and  2  Kings  xxiii.  8,  from 
which  it  appears  the  law  was  not  kept  in  the  ark.  The 
following  passages  speak  of  the  preservation  of  the  Old 

"  [Certainly  the  Jews  had  intercourse  with  other  nations,  at  least  in  the 
time  of  Solomon ;  but  why  did  they,  more  than  the  Phcenicians,  Egyptians,  or 
Babylonians,  need  the  example  of  other  nations  to  teach  them  so  obvious 
a  contrivance  ?] 


36  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^    15, 

Testament  in  the  temple  after  the  exile,  viz.,  Josephus, 
Antiq.  iii,  1,^7;  v.  1,  §  17 ;  Wars,  vii.  5,  5 ;  and  Life, 
^  75.  Nothing  was  found  in  the  holy  of  holies. 
(Wars,  eh.  v.  5,  5.)  The  existence,  therefore,  of  such  a 
collection,  both  before  and  after  the  exile,  and  its  preser- 
vation in  the  temple,  seem  to  be  attested  by  all  the 
evidence  we  could  reasonably  expect  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  But  no  one  can  determine,  from 
any  of  these  passages  referred  to,  how  much,  or  how 
little,   this  temple  library  contained.] 

§  15. 

TIME   OF  FINISHING  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  most  ancient  mention  of  the  Old  Testament 
collection,  as  a  whole,  is  found  in  the  Prologue  of  Jesus 
the  Son  of  Sirach,  about  130  B.  C.  But  from  this 
passage  we  cannot  prove  that  the  third  division  of  the 
Old  Testament  had  been  finally  closed  in  its  present 
form. 

The  evidence  of  the  New  Testament  (Luke  xxiv.  44, 
and  Matt,  xxiii.  35)  is  also  somewhat  indefinite.  (§  10.) 
Philo,  who  flourished  about  41  B.  C,  appears  to  cite  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  whole  ;  but  he  does  not  mention 
all  parts  of  it,  and  therefore  he  cannot  be  a  competent 
witness." 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  existence  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, in  its  present  form,  is  authenticated  by  Josephus, 
who  not  only  mentions  and  makes  use  of  almost  all  the 
books  it  contains,  but  enumerates  in  all  twenty-two  books, 
and  places  the  conclusion  of  the  sacred  literature  of  the 
Hebrews  in  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus.     He 

"  See  Hormmann,  Observatt.  ad  illustrat.  Doct.  de  Canone  V.  T.,  ex  Phi- 
lone  ;  1775. 


^   15.]  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  31 

is  probably  led  to  this  date  by  his  erroneous  view  of  the 
book  of  Esther. 

The  following  is  a  translation  of  the  passage  in  Jo- 
sephus :  "  For  we  have  not  among  us  myriads  of  books 
inconsistent  and  conflicting,  but  only  twenty-two  books, 
containing  the  record  of  all  past  time,  which  are  justly 
confided  in  as  divine.  Five  of  these  belong  to  Moses, 
and  contain  the  laws,  and  the  tradition  respecting  the 
origin  of  mankind  until  his  death.  This  time  is  little 
less  than  three  thousand  years.  From  the  death  of 
Moses  to  the  reign"  of  Artaxerxes,  king  of  the  Persians 
after  Xerxes,  the  prophets,  who  were  after  Moses,  wrote 
the  events  of  their  times  in  thirteen  books.  The  four 
remaining  books  contain  hymns  to  God  and  rules  of 
life.  Every  thing  has  been  written  from  Artaxerxes  to 
our  time  ;  but  this  later  account  is  not  esteemed  of  equal 
authority  with  the  former,  for  there  has  not  been  a  con- 
tinual succession  of  prophets.  From  this  fact  it  is  evi- 
dent how  firmly  we  believe  our  books  —  that,  during  all 
this  time  which  has  passed,  no  one  has  dared  to  add  to, 
to  take  from,  or  to  change  them.  But  it  is  natural  to 
all  Jews,  from  their  very  birth,  to  consider  them  doctrines 
of  God,  to  abide  by  them,  and,  if  need  be,  to  die  for 
them  willingly."' 

"  It  is  evident  this  word,  <io;^^c,  should  be  translated  reign,  and  not  begin- 
ning. See  Midler,  Belehr.  von  d.  Kanon,  p.  114,  in  opposition  to  Oeder,  freie 
Untersuch,  p.  63.  See  also  Josepkus,  Antiq.  book  xi.  c.  6,  §  13 :  "And  Mor- 
decai  wrote  to  the  Jeios,  who  live  in  the  kingdom  of  Artaxerxes,  to  keep  these 
days,  and  to  celebrate  tlie  feast,"  &c. 

*  Contra  Apion.  1.  i.  c.  8 :  Oi  y&g  /uvQiuSeg  ^i^Xliav  elal  naq'  'fi/^tip, 
diav^qxavbiv  xal  fiu/ofiiiMy  dvo  Si  judra  Trgog  loX;  eYxoou  ^i^'kla,  lov 
TiavTOg  ^/ovTa  )(q6vov  t'^*'  Ccvuyqaepriv,  j&  dixalag  ■O'sTu  neniaxEv^iva. 
Kul  TOvTixtv  nivxe  fiBV  iart  jdc  MMvaicjg,  5  TOi'g  re  voiiovg  nsQii/Et,  y.(d 
r-^v  Tr^g  i.vd'Qomo'^ovUxg  naqdiSoaiv,  /^iXQ''  '^^?  avrov  jslevTrig'  ovxog  <> 
j(o6vog  dinolBlnsi,  TQia^dlcov  dXlyov  iiwv.  'A-nb  dh  t^s  Mojvaiwg  jeXevir^g 
fii^Qt  Trig  'AQja^iQ^ov  rov  fier.^  Ziq^rjv  IJegaav  ^aaiXioig   d^x^l^f  (gov- 


38  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  16. 

The  thirteen  Prophets  are, 

1.  Joshua;  8.  Isaiah; 

2.  Judges  and  Ruth  ;  9.  Jeremiah  and  Lamen- 

3.  Two  books  of  Samuel ;  tations  ; 

4.  Two  books  of  Kings  ;         10.  Ezekiel ; 

5.  Two  books  of  Chronicles ;  1 1 .  Daniel ; 

6.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ;  12.  The  minor  Prophets  ; 

7.  Esther;  13.  Job. 
The  four  books  of  a  moral  character  are, 

1.  Psalms;  3.  Ecclesiastes  ; 

2.  Proverbs  ;  4.  Canticles. 

Oeder,  in  his  Free  Inquiry  on  the  Canon,  p.  64,  erro- 
neously thinks  the  books  of  Esther,  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
and  Nehemiah,  were  excluded." 

§  16. 

GROUNDS  OF  RECEPTION  INTO  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  COL- 
LECTION. 

The  one  opinion  that  the  collection  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  regarded  merely  as  a  collection  of  national 

ernment,  not  beginning)  ol  fter^  MuiJari}'  ji^o^^rai  rd  x«t'  ai^TOu?  nga/xHyju 
avviyQuipav  iv  ratal  xul  dtxn  ^t^Xloic-  (Antiqq.  Jud.  1.  xi.  c.  6,  §  13 : 
'Eygaif/e  8h  Magdoxuloc;  jolg  ivir^  ' Aqru^iQ^ov  ^aaiXio)g  ^wati'  'lovSaCoig, 
juviac  nagacpvXduasiv  rdt.g  rifiigag  xal  ^o^TrjJ'  Hyeir  aij&g,  xtI.)  al  d& 
Xoinal  ziaaaQEg  vfivovg  elg  rbv  ■&sbv  xul  xdtg  dv&Qwnoig  ino&r'jxag  lov 
^iov  7tEQti)cov(ii,v.  'And  dk  'Agra^sQ^ov  fiixgi  rov  xa^y  r^^ag  %g6i>ov 
yiyguTTTon  fibv  txaaia'  nlaxswg  8s  oix  bfiolag  yj^lujTat  loXg  ngo  UTuiay, 
8i(k  jd  fi^  yaviad-tti.  x^v  mf  ngocftjTfbv  Axgi^i]  8ia8oxi\p.  drikov  8^  iailr 
igy(^,  nwg  ■>)itelg  roig  l8loig  ygdfiftaat  Tieniaievxajusr.  Toaoijov  ydcg 
ulwfog  riSrj  7tag(i)X7]x6Tog,  oiJiE  ngoad^elpuL  jig  oii8ev,  ovts  dcpsXelv  ttinibv, 
ovTE  fiEiad'ui'ttt  TBToXurjxEi'.  Jlaav  8k  avjiq>vx6v  iariv  svd'vg  ix  r-^f 
7Tg(bTr]g  ysriaECog  'Iov8aloi,g  to  vo^dtEiv  aixu  0aov  86yfiara,  xal  xovTOig 
LuuivEiv   xtd  {intg  uvwv,  eI  8ioi,  ■&vi^axEiv  ■h^8iMg. 

"  See,  also,  Eichham,  §  43.  [See  Academical  Lectures  by  J.  G.  Palfrey, 
(Boston,  1838,)  vol.  i.  p.  25,  sqq.]  See  Midler,  Belehr.  von  Kanon,  p.  126. 
Compare  Chr,  F.  Schmidt,  Enarratio  Sententise  Flav.  Josephi  de  Libris 
V.  T.;  Viteb.  1777. 


^  16.]  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  39 

writings,  and  the  other  that  it  was  considered  a  collec- 
tion of  sacred  writings,"  are  properly  the  same,  to  judge 
from  the  contents  of  most  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  the  theocratic  spirit  of  Jewish  antiquity ;  for 
what  was  truly  national  was  religious  likewise.  In 
either  case,  the  authors  are  regarded  as  inspired,  and 
their  writings  as  the  fruits  of  a  holy  inspiration.'' 

[Philo  and  Josephus  had  a  high  regard  for  the  writers 
of  the  Old  Testament  as  prophets,  and  for  their  writings 
as  divine  communications.  The  latter  sets  a  limit  to 
the  extension  of  the  prophetic  spirit.  (See  the  passage 
from  Josephus  in  §  15.)  They  both  formed  sublime 
notions,  though  bordering  upon  superstition,  of  the  man- 
ner of  their  inspiration,  and  attributed  an  unconscious 
state  to  that  soul  which  was  possessed  by  God.  Moses 
stands  above  all  the  prophets ;  he  is  the  greatest,  and 
attained  the  highest  degree  of  inspiration.  His  writings 
contain  pure,  divine  revelations,  inscrutable  to  human 
wisdom,  and  only  intelligible  to  the  inspired.  But  Philo 
likewise  extends  the  divine  inspiration  to  the  Greek 
translators  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  both  maintain 
that  the  gifts  of  prophecy  and  inspiration  are  not  wholly 
extinct,  though  they  are  limited  to  individuals."] 

The  Talmud  says,  "  What  is  that  which  is  written  — 
*  I  will  give  thee  tables  of  stone,  and  a  law,  and  a  com- 
mandment which  I  have  written,  that  thou  mayest  teach 
them'?  (Ex.  xxiv.  12.)  The  'tables'  are  the  Deca- 
logue ;  the  'law'  is  the  Pentateuch  ;  the  '  commandment' 
is  the  Mishna  ;  '  what  I  have  written  '  is  the  Prophets 
and  Hagiographa ;  '  that  thou  mayest  teach  them,' 
means  the  Gemara.     This  shows  that  all  of  these  were 

"  Eichhorn,  vol.  i.  §  3,  p.  15,  and  Corrodi,  vol.  i.  p.  8,  do  not  stand  in  so  de- 
termined opposition  as  Bauer  pretends.    Einleit.  p.  40. 

*  Josephus,  cont.  Apion.  loc.  cit.         "  De  Wette,  Bib.  Dogmatik,  §  144. 


40  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^    16. 

committed  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai."  —  Berachoth,  p. 
6,  5,  c.  1. 

Again,  Rabbi  Azariah  says,  (in  Meor  Enaim,  p.  175, 
b,)  "  Ezra  only  applied  his  hand  to  books  which  were 
composed  by  prophets  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  writ- 
ten in  the  sacred  tongue."  " 

The  writings  of  Moses,  the  prophets,  and  David,  were 
considered  inspired  on  account  of  the  personal  character 
of  their  authors.  But  the  other  writings,  which  are  in 
part  anonymous,  derive  their  title  to  inspiration  some- 
times from  their  contents,  and  sometimes  from  the  cloud 
of  antiquity  which  rests  on  them.  Some  of  the  writings 
that  were  composed  after  the  exile,  —  such,  for  example, 
as  the  Song  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Daniel,  —  were 
put  in  this  list  on  account  of  the  ancient  authors  to 
whom  they  were  ascribed  ;  others,  —  for  example,  Chron- 
icles and  Esther, — on  account  of  their  contents  ;  and  still 
others,  —  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  —  on  account  of  the  dis- 
tinguished merit  of  their  authors  in  restoring  the  law 
and  the  worship  of  God. 

But  there  must  be  a  period  in  which  the  ancient, 
sacred  literature,  —  whether  written  before  the  exile  or 
after  it,  —  wherein  the  holy  spirit  had  lived,  seemed  to 
be  separated  from  the  modern,  profane  literature,  in 
which  this  spirit  was  no  longer  living.  According  to 
the  later  Jews,  this  period  took  place  after  Malachi,  the 
last  of  the  prophets  ;  *  yet  certainly  it  was  some  time  be- 
fore men  became  conscious  that  they  were  forsaken  by 
that  spirit.  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach  belongs  to  a  more 
modern  time  ;  and  yet  he  is  more  worthy  of  reception 
than    several  others  that  are  admitted.     According    to 

"■  See,  also,  Maimonides,  More  Neboch,  ii.  45,  p.  316.  Matt.  xv.  3,4,6; 
xxii.  43.    2  Tim.  iii.  16.    1  Pet.  i.  10.   2  Pet.  i.  21. 

*  EichJiorn,  §  15,  p.  98.  Baxter,  p.  40.  Bertholdt,  p.  85.  See,  also,  De 
Wette,  1.  c.  §  143,  and  Raschi,  in  §  15,  above. 


§  16.]  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  41 

Hitzig,  (on  Psalm  i.  18,)  the  writings  of  the  Son  of 
Sirach  were  not  included,  because  the  Hebrew  origi- 
nal was  lost. 

[The  unfortunate  age  which  succeeded  seems  deserted 
by  the  holy  spirit.  The  Jews  supposed  its  efficacy  ended 
when  the  Old  Testament  was  closed,  and  that  no  prophet 
arose  afterwards.  (1  Mace.  iv.  46;  ix.  27  ;  xiv.  41.  Com- 
pare Psalm  Ixxiv.  9.)  The  authors  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment were  considered  prophets ;  but,  in  those  times,  the 
nation  had  less  lofty  views  of  their  inspiration  than  of 
their  miracles  and  visions.  Moses  was  deemed  the  great- 
est prophet.  His  law  was  divine  ;  it  was  the  substance 
and  sum  total  of  all  that  was  worth  knowing.  It  was 
the  source  of  life  ;  it  was  eternal.  Man  was  to  become 
wise  by  searching  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  He  could 
even  derive  a  certain  inspiration  from  them." 

Tiie  Talmudists  maintain  that,  after  the  death  of 
the  later  prophets,  —  Haggai,  Zachariah,  and  Malachi,  — 
the  holy  spirit  was  taken  from  Israel.  Five  things,  say 
they,  were  wanting  to  the  second  temple  :  —  the  ark, 
the  urim  and  thummim,  fire  from  heaven,  the  shekinah, 
and  the  holy  spirit  of  prophecy.  There  was  no  proph- 
ecy in  the  second  temple,  after  it  was  finished,  though  it 
had  continued  as  long  as  these  prophets  were  alive,  that 
is,  for  forty  years  after  this  temple  was  begun.  They 
maintain,  however,  that  revelations  were  sometimes 
made  to  individuals  after  this  time,  though  the  spirit  of 
prophecy  was  imparted  to  them  only  in  small  measure.'' 

Eichhorn  says  that,  soon  after  the  return  of  the  He- 

«  See  De  Wette,  Dogmatik,  §  144. 

*  [See  more  on  this  subject  in  Carpzov,  1.  c.  pt.  iii.  ch.  xxv.  This  doc- 
trine of  the  exclusive  and  miraculous  inspiration  of  the  writers  of  the  Old 
Testament  does  not  seem  to  have  existed  during  the  life  of  the  writers 
themselves,  still  less  to  have  been  entertained  by  them.  The  same  remark 
may  be  made  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  with  equal  truth.] 
VOL.    I.  6 


42  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  17,  «. 

brews  from  the  Babylonian  exile,  a  collection  was  made 
of  all  the  extant  writings  of  the  nation,  which  were 
rendered  sacred,  in  the  eyes  of  the  new  people,  by  their 
age,  their  character,  or  their  authors.  This  sacred  libra 
ry,  thus  formed,  was  deposited  in  the  temple  ;  and  for  a 
considerable  time  before  Christ,  no  further  addition  was 
made  to  it.  After  the  time  wben  the  collection  was 
made,  there  arose  among  the  Jews  writers  of  various 
classes,  —  historians,  philosophers,  poets,  ami  writers  of 
theological  romances.  Here,  then,  were  books  on  very 
various  subjects,  and  of  different  ages.  The  old  were 
reckoned  the  works  of  the  prophets  ;  but  the  new  were 
not  so  considered,  because  they  were  written  in  times 
when  there  was  not  an  uninterrupted  succession  of 
prophets.  They  preserved  the  old,  but  not  the  new,  in 
the  temple.  The  former  were  used  in  a  public  collec- 
tion ;  the  latter,  according  to  my  judgment,  in  none, 
certainly  in  no  public  collection ;  and  if  the  Alexandrian 
Christians  had  not  been  such  great  admirers  of  them, 
if  they  had  not  appended  them  to  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Septuagint,  who  knows  that  we  should  have  a  leaf  re- 
maining of  all  the  modern  Jewish  writers  ?  Subsequent- 
ly, some  time  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  these  two  kinds  of 
writings  were  named  according  to  the  use  made  of  them. 
The  ancient  were  called  the  "  canonical,"  the  modern 
the  "apocryphal"  books,  and  the  whole  collection  was 
designated  by  the  title  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.] " 

^  17,  a. 

SAMARITAN   CANON. 

Of  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Samari- 
tans receive  only  the  Pentateuch.     They  have  not  the 

"  Einleit.  §  15. 


^17,  ««.]      THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  43 

original,  but  only  a  very  recent  recasting  [Ueberarbei- 
tung]  of  the  book  of  Joshua,  which  therefore  does  not 
belong  to  their  canon.  (^  171.)  The  reason  of  their 
disparaging  the  other  books  was,  partly,  their  hostile  po- 
sition in  respect  to  the  Jews,  and,  in  part,  their  distin- 
guishing reverence  for  Moses,  whom  they  exalted  so  far 
above  the  other  writers  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  they 
despised  all  the  rest. 

Philo's  classification  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment may  be  compared  with  this.  According  to  him, 
Moses  is  the  only  teacher  of  religious  mysteries  ;  only  a 
general  inspiration  belongs  to  the  other  writers,  and  he 
even  ascribes  this  to  himself."  [In  the  same  manner, 
Josephiis  (Antiq.  xiii.  10,  7)  claims  this  inspiration  for 
others,  and  says  Hyrcanus  possessed  the  three  greatest 
privileges  ;  viz.,  government  of  the  nation,  the  priesthood, 
and  prophecy ;  for  God  was  with  him,  and  enabled  him 
to  know  futurities,  to  foretell,  &c.  Josephus  ascribes  this 
gift  to  himself.  (Wars,  iii.  8,  3.)  "  He  called  to  mind 
the  dreams  which  he  had  dreamed  in  the  night  time, 
whereby  God  had  signified  to  him,  beforehand,  both  the 
future  calamities  of  the  Jews,  &c.  Now,  Josephus  was 
able  to  give  shrewd  conjectures  about  the  interpretation 
of  such  dreams  as  have  been  ambiguously  delivered  by- 
God,"  &c.  &c.]  * 

^17,  aa. 

[CANON   OF  THE   SADDUCEES. 

"  In  the  time  of  Christ,  there  seems  to  have  been  no 
disagreement  among  the  various  sects  and  parties,  into 

"   De  Cherubino,  p.  112. 

*  [See  Joseph,  iv.  10,  7,  and  IVhistorCs  note  thereon.  The  Samaritan 
canon  has  been  erroneously  ascribed  to  the  Sadducees.]  See  Gxddenapfel, 
Joseplii  Archceol.  de  Sad.  Canone  Sententia  ;  Jen.  1804,  4to, 


44  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^11,0(1. 

which  the  Palestine  Jews  were  divided,  in  respect  to  the 
number  of  their  sacred  books.  The  Fathers  have  some- 
times stated  that  the  Sadducees  rejected  all  the  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  except  the  five  books  of  Moses. 
Some  modern  critics  have  thought  the  conjecture  proba- 
ble, because,  on  one  occasion,  Jesus  attempted  to  confute 
the  Sadducees,  who  doubted  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  not  out  of  the  Prophets  or  the  Hagiographa,  where 
passages  to  the  point  could  easily  be  found,  but  merely  from 
the  books  of  Moses,  as  if  they  had  no  regard  for  the  i'or- 
mer,  or  thought  they  had  not  sufficient  weight  to  deter- 
mine the  question  at  issue.  But  if  the  school  of  the  Sad- 
ducees had  arisen  in  such  remote  times  that  only  one  part 
of  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  was  then  in  ex- 
istence, the  origin  of  a  difference  of  opinion,  in  regard  to 
the  number  of  books  belonging  to  it,  could  be  explained. 
The  Sadducees  would  admit  the  writings  which  were 
acknowledged  as  sacred  before  the  separation  from  the 
other  party,  and  would  reject  all  the  rest,  because  they 
were  written  by  Jews  who  did  not  belong  to  their  school. 
But,  since  they  first  separated  from  the  great  mass  of 
their  nation  at  a  time  when  the  limits  of  this  sacred  col- 
lection of  books  had  long  been  determined,  and  the  canon 
was  closed,  it  would  not  be  difficult  for  them  to  connect 
their  doctrines  with  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
as  far  as  they  agreed  with  the  contents  of  the  Mosaic 
books.  So  their  departure  from  the  other  Jews,  in  this 
point,  would  be  inexpedient,  and  its  origin  difficult  to 
explain.  Josephus,  who  was  well  versed  in  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Pharisees,  knew  of  no  doctrine  on  this  point 
which  was  peculiar  to  them.  He  merely  says  that  the 
Sadducees,  rejecting  all  tradition,  adhered  only  to  the 
written  Law,  without  determining  how  many  books  they 
^'eckoned  in  their  sacred  national  writings.     And  when 


^17,  6.]         THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  45 

he  mentions  the  principles  on  which  the  Sadducees  difler 
from  the  Pharisees,  he  never  drops  a  single  word  from 
which  it  can  be  inferred  that  these  two  sects  differed  in 
regard  to  the  number  of  their  sacred  books.  How  conld 
the  Sadducees  lill  the  office  of  high  priest  if  they  differed 
on  so  important  a  point  from  the  faith  of  the  whole  na- 
tion ?  And  since,  before  and  at  the  time  of  Christ,  a 
Sadducean  family  had  for  a  long  time  appropriated  the 
office,  how  could  they  favor  the  reading  of  the  Haphtara 
with  the  Parasha,  if  they  did  not  consider  the  Prophets 
worthy  of  equal  respect  with  Moses  ?  And,  if  we  may 
build  any  thing  on  the  dialogues  between  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees  in  the  Talmud,  R.  Gedaliah  proves  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  not  only  from  Moses,  but  also  from 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa,  while  his  opponents, 
the  Sadducees,  make  no  objection  to  the  authority  and 
value  of  the  latter  in  theological  controversies.  Still 
further,  on  the  supposition  of  their  authority,  they  at- 
tempted by  other  arguments  to  weaken  the  force  of  the 
passages  cited.  Under  such  circumstances,  the  conjec- 
ture of  the  Fathers  cannot  destroy  the  opinion  that  the 
Sadducees  and  Pharisees  were  unanimous  in  respect  to 
the  number  of  the  sacred  national  books ;  and  if  Christ, 
in  a  discussion  with  the  Sadducees,  proves  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead  solely  from  the  writings  of  Moses,  the 
circumstance  may  be  accidental."]" 

%  17,  b. 

THE   PRETENDED   ALEXANDRIAN   CANON. 

The  Alexandrian    version,  which  was  considered  as 
inspired,  was  very  early  enlarged  by  the  productions  of 

"  [EicKhoryi,  §  35.     Basnage,  Hist  des  Juifs,  vol.  ii.  pt.  i.  p.  325,  sqq.,  and 
Brucker,  Hist.  cnt.  Phil.  vol.  ii.  p.  72L] 


46  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [§17,^. 

the  later  Jewish  literature,  both  in  translations"  and  in 
the  original  writings.  The  Palestine  Jews  made  a  care- 
ful separation  between  some  of  them  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  and  part  of  them  they  did  not  read.  Thus  Jose- 
phus  says,  "  But  these  books  are  not  accounted  of  equal 
value  with  those  before  them,  because  there  was  no  ex- 
act succession  of  prophets."  They  had  a  decided  aver- 
sion to  Greek  literature  :  thus  Josephus  says,  "  For  our 
nation  does  not  encourage  those  that  learn  the  languages 
of  many  nations,  and  so  adorn  their  discourses  with  the 
smoothness  of  their  periods,  because  they  look  upon  this 
sort  of  accomplishment  as  common,  not  only  to  all  sorts 
of  free  men,  but  to  as  many  of  the  servants  as  please  to 
learn  them."* 

But  there  are  no  facts  from  which  it  can  be  inferred  that 
the  Egyptian  Jews  themselves  ever  formally  acknowl- 
edged a  peculiar  canon  of  the  Old  Testament."  Notwith- 
standing their  Jealousy,  in  a  matter  of  such  importance, 
they  could  not  disagree  with  their  Palestine  brethren. 
Philo  sufficiently  proves  that  they  did  not ;  for  he  makes 
no  use  of  the  Apocrypha;  and  his  authority  is  sufficient  to 
balance  that  of  the  writers  of  the  church  who  were  not 


"  Josephus  had  probably  read  tlieni  in  this  version.  But  scarce  any- 
thing with  respect  to  this  subject  can  be  learned  from  the  New  Testament. 
See  Bertlwldt,  vol.  i.  p.  90. 

^  Antiq.  xx.  11,  2.  The  decision  of  the  modern  Jews  in  respect  to  tlie 
Apocrypha  may  be  seen  in  Hottinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  51G.  See  Baba  Kama, 
fol.  82,  col.  2.  Compare  Bertholdt,  p.  92.  [The  Palestine  Jews,  says  this 
-svriter,  never  admitted  a  Greek  book  into  tlieir  canon ;  they  even  denounced 
a  curse  upon  tlie  use  of  the  Greek  language  for  sacred  purposes.] 

■■  In  favor  of  this  opinion,  see  Set/ikr,  Untersuch.  d.  Kanons,  vol.  i.  p.  5. 
Apparatus  ad  Lib.  Y.  T.  interpret.  §  9.  Corrodi,  Beitriige,  vol.  v.  p.  52.  Be- 
leucht.  d.  Gesch.  d.  Kanons,  vol.  i.  p.  155.  Jahn,  Einleit-  vol.  i.  p.  261.  Miin- 
scher,  Dogniengeschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  257.     .iiiffiisti,  §  57. 

On  the  other  side,  Eichhom,  §  2.3.  Bauer,  Einleit.  p.  56.  Bertholdt  (vol.  i. 
p.  94)  takes  the  middle  course.  According  to  Havemik,  tlie  Essenes  had 
a  collection  of  sacred  books  containing  some  of  their  own  works  ;  1.  c.  p.  75, 


^  17,  h.]        THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  47 

acquainted  with  Hebrew  literature,  and  therefore  con- 
founded the  apocryphal  with  the  canonical  books.  The 
only  concession  which  can  be  made  is  this  :  The  apoc- 
ryphal writings  were  more  used,  and  held  in  higher 
esteem,  among  the  Hellenist  than  among  the  Palestine 
Jews,  who  were  far  more  rigorous  upon  this  point;  and, 
also,  the  unlearned  might  easily  confound  the  two  kinds 
of  writings.  The  apocryphal  book  of  Esdras,  speaking 
of  the  composition  of  these  books,  (xiv.  44,  sqq.,)  says, 
*'  In  forty  days,  they  wrote  two  hundred  and  four  books.* 
And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  forty  days  were  fulfilled, 
that  the  Highest  spake,  saying,  '  The  first  that  thou  hast 
written  publish  openly,  that  the  worthy  and  unworthy 
may  read  it ;  but  keep  the  seventy  last,  that  thou  mayest 
deliver  them  only  to  such  as  be  wise  among  the  people  ; 
for  in  them  is  the  spring  of  wisdom  and  understanding, 
and  the  fountain  of  wisdom,  and  the  stream  of  knowl- 
edge.' "  But  even  this  is  rather  against  than  in  favor 
of  the  Alexandrian  canon." 

[Eichhorn  (^  26)  says  that  Philo  was  acquainted  with 
the  apocryphal  writings  of  the  Old  Testament ;  for  he 
borrows  phrases  from  them,  but  he  never  quotes  a  single 
one  of  those  books,  [as  authority ;]  still  less  does  he  alle- 
gorize them,  or  cite  them  as  proofs.  He  takes  no  notice 
of  them  ;  but  this  is  not  because  he  is  not  acquainted 
with  them,  —  a  circumstance  not  to  be  expected  in  a  man 
of  such  extensive  reading,  —  but  probably  because  he 
esteemed  them  slightly,  and  did  not  class  them  among 
those  writings  his  contemporaries  regarded  as  holy  and 
divine.     His  contempt  for  them  was  very  great.     He 

"  Comp.  Corrodi,  Beleuchtung  d.  Kanon,  vol.  i.  p.  174,  and  §  25  and  28, 
below.  [See  Gfrdrer,  Prophetae  veteres  pseudepigraphi,  &c. ;  Stutt  1840, 
pp.  66  and  140.] 


48  OmuIN    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.         [^  17,  6. 

never  does  them  the  honor  he  confers  upon  Plato,  Phi- 
lolaus,  Solon,  Hippocrates,  Heraclitus,  and  others,  from 
whose  writings  he  often  extracts  whole  passages. 

But,  after  all,  the  following  conclusion,  which  is  adopt- 
ed by  Bertholdt,  appears  the  most  reasonable,  —  that 
the  truth  lies  between  these  two  opinions.  It  is  quite 
certain,  as  he  sajs,  that  the  Egyptian  Jews  never  consid- 
ered the  apocryphal  books  as  a  part  of  the  canon,  prop- 
erly so  called ;  but  it  is  equally  certain  they  regarded 
and  used  them  as  an  appendix  to  the  Old  Testament 
before  the  time  of  Christ.  They  were  read  as  valuable 
religious  and  moral  writings,  and  were  neither  placed  in 
the  canon  nor  treated  as  common  books."  They  were 
deemed  holy,  but  not  perfectly  holy,  and  so  were  placed 
beside  the  canon,  not  in  it.  The  ancient  Christians,  who 
were  not  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew,  and  therefore 
were  dependent  on  the  Egyptian  Jews  for  their  knowl- 
edge of  the  Scriptures,  considered  all  the  books  of  the 
Alexandrine  Codex  as  genuine  and  sacred  books,  and 
accordingly  made  the  same  use  of  the  Apocrypha  and  the 
Hebrew  canon.  But  this  practice  was  founded  on  a 
mistake ;  for  the  Alexandrian  Jews  themselves  never 
viewed  these  writings  in  that  light.]  * 

"  [But  see  Palfrey,  1.  c.  pp.  41,  42.    See  also  Jahn,  1.  c.  §  26—31.] 
*  [See  below,  §  25,  26.] 


^  18.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  49 


CHAPTER  II. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  ORIGIN   OF  THE  COLLECTION   OF  THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT,  AND  OF  THE  BIBLE  IN  GENERAL ; 

OR,  A  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN   CANON. 

%18. 

EARLIEST  TRACES  OF  THE  USE  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT  BY  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

With  the  primitive  Christians,  the  Old  Testament  was 
the  onlv  ancient  religious  book."  Afterwards,  the  wri- 
tings  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles  came  gradually  into 
use.  But  the  citation  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  in  2  Peter 
iii.  15,  is  an  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  that 
Epistle.  The  opinion  that  the  apostle  John  formed  the 
canon  arises  from  misunderstanding  a  passage  of  Euse- 
bins.   (Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  24.) 

I.  Among  the  apostolic  Fathers,  express  citations  of 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  are  extremely  rare. 
Perhaps  the  following  are  the  most  remarkable :  — 

1.  Clement  of  Rome,  1  Ep.  ad  Cor.  c.  47.  "  Take 
the  Epistle  of  the  blessed  Paul,  the  apostle.  What  did  he 
first  write  to  you  in  the  beginning  of  [his  preaching]  the 
gospel  ?  Certainly  he  wrote  to  you  by  the  Spirit,  [to 
admonish  you]  concerning  himself,  and  Cephas,  and 
Apollos,  because,  even  then,  you  had  become  inclined  " 
[that  is,  to  honor  men  more  than  the  truth.]  See  Paul, 
1  Cor.  ch.  iv.* 

"  Photius,  Bib.  Cod.  254.  Jo.  Ens,  Bib.  Sac.  ch.  v.  diss.  4,  §  22.  Pritii 
Introd.  p.  27. 

*  [See  JVorton,  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels ;  Boston,  1837, 
vol.  i.  p.  cclviii.]  Clem.  Rom.  1  Ep.  ad  Cor.  c.  47 :  'AvaXi^ers  t^v  imaxo- 
VOL.    L  7 


60  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  ^^• 

2.  Ignatius,  Epist.  ad  Ephesios,  c.  12.  "  The  fellow- 
ministers  [rather  the  fellow-partakers  of  the  mysteries] 
of  sanctified  Paul,  Avho  in  every  letter  maketh  mention 
of  you  in  Christ  Jesus."  Again,  in  his  Epist.  ad  Philad. 
c.  5,  he  says,  "  Fleeing  for  refuge  to  the  gospel,  as  to  the 
flesh  of  Jesus,  and  to  the  apostles,  [that  is,  to  the  wri- 
tings of  the  apostles,]  as  to  the  presbytery  of  the  church, 
we  love  likewise  the  prophets,  for  they  also  announce 
the  gospel."  Here  the  word  gospel  does  not  refer  to 
any  written  document." 

S.  Polycarp,  Ep.  ad  Philipp.  c.  3.  "  Paul,  who,  being 
present  with  you,  before  the  face  of  the  men  then  living, 
taught,  diligently  and  thoroughly,  the  word  of  truth  ; 
who,  being  absent,  w-rote  letters  to  you."  Compare  c. 
11,  12.* 

II.  Evident  allusions  to  the  apostolical  Epistles  are 
more  frequent. 

1.  Clement  of  Rome,  1  Ep.  ad  Cor.  c.  35.  "  Putting 
away  from  themselves  all  unrighteousness  and  iniquity, 
covetousness,  strife,  evil  manners,  and  fraud,  whisper- 
ing, calumny,  hatred  of  God,  haughtiness  and  pride,  vain- 
glory and  ambition,  (or  frivolity ;)  they  who  do  these 


Xtjj/  rov  fiaxnqiov  JJavlov  tov  dnoorolov  il  nqmov  {ifuv  iv  dQX'^  rov 
siia'/yeXlov  liyqaijiEv ;  in''  dLkijOelag  nvevfiaxixiag  iniaieilsv  ifilv  nsql 
ttiiov  re  y.ul  Ki/qa  xal  'u^ndlloi,  dia  t6   xai  tStb  ngoaxXloBig  vfiag  rre- 

"   Gieseler,  iiber  die  Evangelien,  p.  157.     Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Ephes.  c.  12 : 

Hitvlov  avf/uvOTui  tov  dyiuirfiii'ov o;  iv  Tziiari  irTicno).fi  jiri]- 

^lOVFvei,  ifxiav  iv  A'^tarw  'Itjcrov.  In  Ep.  ad  Philadelph.  c.  5:  TTQoaqivym' 
Tt5  einyyeXla  &s  goqxI  'Ljoov,  xal  toIc  inoaj6).oig  &g  nqBa^vjeqlw  ix- 
xXyalas'  xal  rovg  7TQoq)jqTag  dk  d)'«7iw,«ej',  Siu  to  xal  avro-dg  elg  t6  siay- 
'/ihov  xurrjYYslxivui,  xrl. 

'■  [JVorton,  1.  c.  p.  cclxxviii.]     Polycarp,  Ep.  ad  Philipp.  c.  3 : Tlav- 

Xov,  8c  ysvdfisvog  iv  v/jXv  xari  nqdoajnov  tUv  j6ts  d.vdQ(hn(i>v,  idlda^ev 
(ix^SiBg  xal  fia^altag  tov  Ttegl  ii.tj'&elag  Xdyov  8§  xal  dnav  {'filv  eygaijiBv 

iTttTTol&S. 


§  18.]     THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  COLLECTION.         51 

things  are  haters  of  God,  and  not  only  they  who  do  them, 
but  such  as  approve  them."  Compare  Romans  i. 
29—32. 

Again,  ch.  36.  "  Who,  being  the  brightness  of  his 
greatness,  is  as  much  greater  than  the  angels,  as  he  has 
inherited  a  more  excellent  name  than  they.  For  this  it  is 
written,  '  He  maketh  spirits  his  angels,  and  a  flame  of  fire 
his  ministers,'  &c.     Compare  Hebrews  i.  3 — 7.   'Who, 

being  the  brightness  of  his  glory, became  as  much 

greater  than   the  angels,   as  he   has   inherited    a   name 

more  excellent  than  they.' And  of  the  angels  he 

says,  '  Who  maketh  a  flame  of  fire  his  angels,'  "  fcc." 

2.  Ignatius,  Ep.  ad  Eph.  c.  2.  "  That  in  one  obe- 
dience you  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind, 
and  in  the  same  judgment,  and  that  you  may  all  say  the 
same  thing  upon  the  same  subject."  Compare  1  Cor.  i. 
10.     "  That  you  may  all  say  the  same  thing that 

"■  J.  C.  Orell,  Sel.  Pat.  Eccl.  capp.  ad  eiajiyTjTixiji'  pert.  Tur.  1820,  p.  6, 
sqq.     See  other  allusions  in  Lardner,  Credibility,  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  41,  sqq. ; 

ed.  Lond.   1831,  10  vols.   8vo,     Clem.    Rorn.    1  Ep.  ad  Cor.  c.  35: 

tinoQ^tif'uvreg  U(p'  tuvj(bp  niiaav  udixlay  xal  uvoulav,  TrlsoveSUtr,  eQSig, 
xaxoTjd'Elu;  re  y.al  ddlovg,  ipiO'v^m/uovg  re  y.ul  xaTaXuXt&g,  d'eoarvyluv, 
iTTegrjilJui'lav  te  xcd  dXa'C,oi'elav,  xevodo^litv  js  nul  tpiXo^evluv  (qpJ.o- 
xBvlay).  TavTu  yuq  ol  nQdaaovTSg  (TTvyijiol  t(5  -i^f&j  i'niiiQ;(Ovaii'-  ov 
fidpof  ds  ol  nQuaaovieg  ruvra,  &%},&  xal  ol  avvevdoKOVPreg.  Comp. 
Rom.  i.  29 — 32:  risTi'Krjoo^ivovg  Tt/xar^  ddixlq,  noQVslq,  nXsovs^lq,  xuxtq, 
fn^aTOv;  oid'di'ov,  q>6vov,  iglSog,  S6)^ov,  xaxoijtJ'elug'  ifjid'vgtardig,  xuTaX&kovg, 

■CheoaTvyeig,  iSQiarug,    ineorjcpixi'ovg,    tiX(x'C,/>yug o'ljii't-g    to    dixaloiua 

Tov  \)-Eov  iniyvot'Tsg  (ort  ol  lu  tquivtu  nQuaaopieg  uS.ioi,  &(ty(xT0v  flair) 
Ol)  fidi'oi'  aviic  TCOiouun',  uXlu  xal  (TvvBvSoxovai,  loig  noiiaaovai.  Cap. 
36:  oj  C)J'  &rcav'/a(Tfioi  ttjj  fxeyaXftxjvvijg  aiiov,  joaovia  fiel'Qjtv  tcnlt'  dj'- 
yiXco)',  OCTCp  dincpoowTeQOv  oro/nu  x£xh]Q0P6^ii]XE f.  rEyqanjixt.  ydo  ovtok, 
6  Tionbv  rovg  d.)'yil.ovg  uvjov  nfEvfiata  xal  rovg  iBiiovgyovg  ai>iov  nvQdg 

cploya,  xil.  —  Comp.  Heb.  i.  3 — 7:  og  ihv  dcnavyaapn  rrj?  So^rjg «i5- 

jov roaovra  xqeLttmv  yBf6^.Bvog  riav  ^yyilvjp,  oaa  dtaqiogdrsoov  nag' 

aitovg    xExlrjgovouijxEv  ovofia xal   nqog   fiev  TOvg  dyyih)vg  Myer  6 

noiibv  Toig  dcyyE^ovg  uvtov  nvnog  (pl6ya,  xiX, 


52  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [§  18. 

jou  be  perfectly  joined  in  the  same  mind,  and  in  the 
same  counsel."" 

3.  Polycarp,  Ep.  ad  Phil i pp.  c.  v.  "  Neither  fornica- 
tors, nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves  with  man- 
kind, shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."  See  the  same 
words  in  1  Cor.  vi.  9.* 

III.  But  the  references  and  allusions  to  the  evangel- 
ical writings  are  in  part  vague  and  fluctuating^  and  in 
part  they  relate  to  the  apocryphal  Gospels. 

The  following  are  of  the  first  class  :  — 

1.  Barnabas,  Ep.  c.  4.  "  Let  us  therefore  take  heed, 
lest,  as  it  is  written,  '  Many  of  us  shall  be  found  called, 
but  few  chosen.'  " 

Chap.  vii.  "  Thus  he  [Jesus]  says,  '  Those  who 
wish  to  see  me,  and  to  touch  my  kingdom,  ought,  when 
afflicted  and  suffering,  to  receive  me.'  "  Compare  Matt, 
xvi.  24.    Mark  viii.  34.    Luke  xvi.  23.-^ 

2.  Clementof  Rome,  Ep.  1  ad  Cor.  c.  13.  "Especially 
remembering  the  word  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  which  he 
spake,  teaching  gentleness  and  long-suffering  ;  for  thus 
he  spake :   '  Pity  that  you  may  be  pitied :  forgive  that  it 

"   /g-jiaf.  Eph.  c.  2 : tV«  iv  fuq  inoTuyi]  -^re  xuTijQTiafxivoi  tw  wvtw 

vol  Kul  TTj  uiiri  yi'iofiT^  y.ttl  to  aird  Xsyi^re  n&yreg  neql  lov  uvtov.     Comp. 

1  Cor.  i.  10:  iVm  to  uiid  'kiyrjT.e   ndvisg i^re  ^a  xairjQTia^ivoi,  av  tcu 

aim  vat  xal  iv  jji  ainfj  yvdiprj.  Lardner,  ubi  sup,  p.  123,  sqq.  See  Lard- 
ner,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  pp.  82,  83. 

''  Polycarp,  Ep.  ad  Philipp.  c.  5:  Kul  o^jte  n6Qvoi,  ovre  fiului^l,  ovif. 
doue voy.olTui  (^uaiXelav  -dsov  xhjQOPOfir^aovcn.  Comp.  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  sq. 
Lardner,  p.  1.59.     See  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  101.     See  JVorton,  1.  c.  p.  cclxii.] 

"  See  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  21.  [See  JVorton,  1.  c.  p.  cclxviii.  sqq.,  who  denies 
the  authenticity  of  this  work  of  Barnabas.]  Ep.  Barnab.  c.  4:  Attendamus 
ergo,  ne  forte,  sicut  scriptum  est,  multi  vocati,  pauci  electi  inveniamur. 
The  words  sicut  scriptum  est  are  perhaps  added  by  the  translator.  See 
Credner,  Beitrage  zur  Einleit.  in  b.  Schriften,  vol.  i.  p.  28.  Cap.  7:  Ovtw, 
tprjolv  [' Irjaovg),  ol  -d^iXofji;  fie  l8eli>  xal  aipaadal  (lov  t^s  ^aadslag, 
dcpEllovai  -d-li^ivxeg  xnl  Trnd^dvreg  la^ielv  us.  Comp.  Matt.  xvi.  24.  Mark 
yiii.  34.    Luke  ix.  23.  (?)   Lardner,  p.  10,  sqq. 


^  18.]     THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  COLLECTION,        33 

may  be  forgiven  you  :  as  you  do,  so  shall  it  be  done  unto 
you :  as  you  give,  so  shall  it  be  given  unto  you  :  as  you 
judge,  so  shall  you  be  judged  :  with  what  measure  you 
mete,  with  the  same  shall  it  be  measured  to  you.'  "  Com- 
pare Luke  vi.  36— 38,  Matt.  vi.  12— 15,  vii.  1.  Com- 
pare chap.  xlvi.  with  Matt,  xviii.  6,  Mark  ix.  42,  and 
Luke  xvii.  2." 

Clement  of  Rome,  Ep.  2.  "And  another  scripture 
says,  '  I  am  not  come  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sin- 
ners.' "     Compare  Matt.  ix.  13. 

Again,  chap.  x.  (viii.)  "  For  the  Lord  says  in  the 
gospel,  '  If  you  have  not  kept  the  little,  who  shall  give 
you  the  great  ?  I  say  to  you.  He  that  is  faithful  in  the 
least,  is  faithful  also  in  much.'  Compare  Luke  xvi.  11, 
12.  '  If  you  are  not  faithful  in  the  unrighteous  mammon, 
who  will  intrust  you  with  the  true  ?  And  if  you  are  not 
faithful  in  another's  possessions,  who  will  give  you  your 
own?'"* 

3.  Ignatius  ad  Trail,  c.  11.  "These  are  not  my 
Father's  planting." 

Again,  ad  Philad.  c.  3.  "  Because  they  are  not  the 
Father's  planting."     Compare  Matt.  xv.  13. 


"  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  37.  Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  1  ad  Cor,  c,  13 :  Mdham  fie/nt'tj- 
jjiifoi,  libf  loyotf  70V  xvglov  'Itjctov,  ovg  il&hjae  diduaxotv  inielxsiai-  xctl 
/luiCQOx^v/ilui''  ovT(t)g  Y^Q  sJ^iEi"  'Ei^ssLTE,  tVct  eiej/^rjrE*  6.cplEiE,  Jrcc  (xcfeify] 
vuTy  (be  noiEits,  ovio)  nonjd-^aeiat,  {'ulv  wj  SldoTS,  oviot  dod-r^aBTut 
ifdv  (h;  'Aolt'ETe,  ovrot  Hoi&riaETui  vuTv  w  juiiQat  ftETQEiTE,  ir  ainot  fiE- 
iQi]driasT(a  vfiTi'.  Comp.  Luke  vi.  36 — 38,  Matt  vi.  12 — 15,  vii.  1.  Comp. 
c.  46,  with  Matt,  xviii.  6,  Mark  ix.  42,  Luke  xvii.  2.    Lardner,  p.  39,  sq. 

*  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  36.  Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  2  :  Kul  t  riou  '{Q^^fh  ^^-/ei,  oto  ovx 
tySov  xaliaai  Sixalovg,  diKla.  d/^iitQTO)Xovg.  Comp.  Mattix.  13.  Cap.  10  (8)  • 
AiyEi  y&o  xvQiog  iv  tw  ej5«}'j'ei/Q)*  El  to  iiixqhv  oix  iTi]Q>\ottTE,  to  /usya 
t/c  ijiuv  dwaei ;  Xiyoj  y&Q  i/uTv,  on  6  niaibg  iv  iht/lcma,  xul  if  ttoDm 
nioidg  iaiw.  Comp.  Luke  xvi.  11,  12:  El  if  tw  ddlxa  fiafio)ya  mawlovx 
iyivEob'E,  TO  dilrjd^ivdp  ilg  ifilv  maTEvaEi ;  xal  el  kv  tw  dXi.oToliii  Tuaxol 
ovx  iyiieaii^E,  to  iiiijEQOv  tig  i/nTi>  diaasi ;    Lardner,  p.  72. 


54  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [§  18. 

Again,    ad    Smjnieas,  cap.   1 "Baptized    by 

John,  that  all  righteousness  might  be  fulfilled  in  him." 
Comp.  Matt.  iii.  15." 

4.  Polycarp,  c.  2.  "  Remembering  what  the  Lord  said 
when  teaching,  '  Judge  not,  that  you  be  not  judged  : 
forgive,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  you :  pity,  that  you  may 
be  pitied:  with  what  measure  you  mete,  it  shall  be 
measured  to  you  again.'  "  Compare  Matt.  vi.  12,  vii.  1, 
and  Clement,  as  above  cited,  Ep.  1  ad  Cor.  c.  13.* 

IV.  The  following  refer  to  the  apocryphal  Gospels :  — 

1.  Clement  of  Rome,  Ep.  2,  c.  12.  "The  Lord, 
being  asked  by  some  one  when  his  kingdom  should 
come,  answered,  '  When  two  shall  be  one  ;  the  outward 
as  the  inward  ;  and  the  male  with  the  female  shall  be 
neither  male  nor  female.'"'' 

2.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Stromat.  1.  iii.  p.  465. 
"  For  this  reason  Cassianus  says,  when  Salome  asked 
when  the  subject  of  her  inquiry  should  be  known,  the 
Lord  said,  '  When  you  shall  remove  the  covering  of 
shame,  and  two  shall  be  one,  and  the  male  with  the 
female  shall  be  neither  male  nor  female.'     We  have  not 


"  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  79,  sqq.     Ignat.  ad  T^-all.  c.   11 :   Ovrot,  oix  eial 

(pvTflu  7iutq6;.     Ad  Philadelph.  c.  3: 8i,6l  t6  fi^  sjvai  adTOvg  tpvieluv 

Tiurgdc.    Comp.  Matt  xv.  13.     Ad  Smyrn.  c.   1: ^e^amiofdvov  -vno 

^ fiix'xi'vov,  Iva  7Ti.rjQutd"fi  naaa  dixniocruitj  vtx'  avjov.  Comp.  Matt.  iii.  15. 
Lardner,  p.  115,  sqq. 

'  Polycarp,  c.  2:  Mfrjfwvevaavreg  ds  wv  alnef  6  xvgiog  8id(!c(Ti(0)v  M^ 
yoli'FTF,  h'u  fii)  x^t^rjTe-  (tcflBTE,  xal  d.iped'^CTeTav  iuZv  eXseItc,  tVa 
ilcrfi^ire'  if  ai  ^irQW  ^ucr^^re,  d.vTi/nejgrjdriaeTai'  vuli'.  Comp.  MatL  vi.  12, 
sqq.,  vii.  1,  and  Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  1  ad  Cor.  c.  13.  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  10^. 
Eichhorn^s  Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  113,  [where  this  subject  is  treated 
at  length.     See,  also,  JVorton,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  Appendix,  p.  cclviii.  sqq.] 

"^  Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  2,  c.  12:  ' EnFQDnijOflg  uiuibg  6  xvQiog  ino  rivog,  n6iB 
I'l^Fi  uinod  T}  (iaailFin,  fJjifv  " Otuv  taruv  jd.  dvo  'ir,  xal  id  f^w  (hg  t6 
I'noi,  y.al  to  Unaev  uBif't  rrj;  ffijlFlag,  oiire  floaFv,  ovtf  ^^iu. 


^  18.]  THE    iMEVV    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  55 

the  first  sentence  in  the  four  Gospels  transmitted  to  us, 
but  it  occurs  in  that  according  to  the  Egyptians.''^'' 

3.  Ignatius,  Ep.  ad  Smjrn.  "And  when  he  came  to 
the  companions  of  Peter,  he  said  to  them,  '  Take,  touch 
me,  and  see  that  I  am  not  a  bodiless  demon : '  and  im- 
mediately they  touched  him,  and  believed."  Com- 
pare Luke  xxiv.  39. * 

4.  Jerome  says,''  "  In  that  Epistle,  (to  the  Smyrne- 
ans,)  and  the  work  on  the  Gospels,  w^hich  has  recently 
been  translated  by  me,  he  [Ignatius]  gives  his  testimony 
on  the  person  of  Christ,  and  says.  After  the  resurrection, 
I  saw  him  in  the  flesh,  and  believe  that  it  was  he.  And 
when  he  came  to  Peter,  and  to  those  who  were  with  Pe- 
ter, he  said  to  them,  '  Behold,  touch  me,  and  see  that  I 
am  not  an  incorporeal  demon ; '  and  immediately  they 
touched  him,  and  believed." 

Again,  Jerome  remarks,''  "  For  when  the  apostles 
thought  him  a  spirit,  —  or,  according  to  the  Gospel  which 
the  Nazarenes  call  that  of  the  Hebrews,  an  incorporeal 
demon,  —  he  said  to  them, '  Why  are  you  troubled  ? '  "  fee." 

"^  CZem.  Alex.  Stromat.  1.  iii.  p.  465:  ^td  toCto  zoo  6  Kaaaiavdg  q^rjai, 
7TVf&uvouiv7]g  trig  ^al(j\ur}g,  tiSts  ypoa^-^^areTUt  rd  ttbqI  ^v  rj^szo,  iqirj  a 
Kvgiog'  (Hav  to  Tfjj  aia/vvijg  ivSvaa  Ttazr^aijie,  xul  brav  yiwijui  id 
dun  £)',  y.al  to  cH^qsp  fisrdi  trig  xf^rjlElac,  o^ie  olqqijv,  oiiis  ^tj^.u.  TJqmoi' 
fiiv  ovv  kv  Tolg  nagadsdo/iiivoig  i^fxiv  Tirragctv  Eiayyelloig  ovit  exoftev  to 
Qrjxbv,  di^'  iv  TO)  k«t'  Alyvmiovg. 

*  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Smyrn.  c.  3:  Kal  ore  ngbg  rovg  negl  IJiTgnr  -qlifer, 
tcprj  uvToTg'  Aa^iere,  ifji]Xaq)r\(Taii  fie,  xal  i'deie,  oti,  ovx  ei/nl  duifidi'ini' 
(xmof/aTOf  xul  svd'vg  n-ftiov  r^ifiavro,  xal  inlcnevcrav. 

"  Hieron.  Catal.  Scriptt.  ecclesiast.  n.  23,  v.  Ignat.  :  In  qua  epistola  (ad 
Smyrnaeos)  et  de  Evangelic,  quod  nuper  a  me  translatum  est,  super  persona 
Christi  ponit  testimonium,  dicens :  Ego  vero  et  post  resurrectionem  in  came 
eum  vidi  et  credo  quia  sit.  Et  quando  venit  ad  Petrum  et  ad  eos,  qui  cum 
Petro  erant,  dixit  eis :  Ecce  palpate  me  et  videte,  quia  non  sum  daemanium 
incorporale.     Et  statim  tetigerunt  eum  et  crediderunt. 

''■  Hieron.  prooem.  ad  libr.  18,  Jes. :  Cum  enim  apostoli  eum  putarent 
Bpiritum,  vel  juxta  Evangelium  quod  Hebrasorum  lectitant  Nazarsei,  incor- 
porale dcemonium,  dixit  eis :  quid  turbatis  estis,  etc. 

'  Comp.  Eusehius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  36. 


B6  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  19. 


§  19. 

TRACES   OF  THE   USE   OF    THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  IN   THE 
EARLY   WRITERS   OF  THE   CHURCH. 

1.  Justin  Martyr,  who  died  A.  C.  166,  was  acquaint- 
ed with  our  Gospels,  as  it  appears  from  the  following 
passages  :  "  For  the  apostles,  in  the  memoirs  composed 
by  them  which  are  called  Gospels,  have  thus  informed 
us,"  &c.  "And  the  memoirs  by  the  apostles,  or  the 
writings  of  the  prophets,  were  read,"  &lc." 

However,  it  has  been  conjectured  that  these  writings 
rel'erred  to  were  different  from  our  Gospels,*  Justin 
quotes  none  of  the  catholic  Epistles,  though  sometimes 
he  seems  to  allude  to  them.'^  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  considers  the  Apocalypse  as  the  work  of  John  the 
apostle."* 

2.  Tatian,  who  died  A.  C.  176,  makes  use  of  the 
Gospel  of  John.  He  says,  "  It  is  this  which  was 
spoken :  '  The  darkness  does  not  receive  (or  comprehend) 
the  light.'  "     Compare  John  i.  5.^  He  used  some  Epistles 


"  Apol.  i.  c.  66,  p.  83,  (ed.  Hag.  Com.) :  01  yuQ  dinoajoloi  iv  lolc  yfvo- 
[jUiVoig  in''  ctxnihv  annui'ijiiovev/Liuai,  a  italeiTui  edayyiha,  ovtm:  rrugidbixav. 

Cap.  67 : xal  rd  (xno/irrj/iorevfiuia  t5»'   dnoarolwi',  t)  tu  avyyQcxfifmiu 

jwf  Tcqoffijiwv  uiayivway.fTai,  xrl. 

''  Eichhorii,  Einl.  ins  N.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  78,  sqq.  Miinscher,  Dogmengeschichte, 
vol.  i.  p.  295,  sq.  On  the  other  hand,  see  Winer,  Justinum  Mart.  Evangeliis 
canonicis  Usnm  fuisse  ostenditur ;  Lips,  1819, 4to.  See  his  Lehrbuch,  vol.  ii. 
§  66,  67.  According  to  Credner,  1.  c.  p.  268,  sqq.,  besides  our  canonical  Gos- 
pels, Justin  made  use  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter. 

'  See  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  ch.  x.,  especially  p.  137.  [See,  also,  JVbrton,  1.  c. 
p.  195, 199,  201,  224,  and  his  Appendix,  note  E,  p.  ccvii.  and  p.  ccxxxii.  sqq.] 

''  Dialog,  cum  Tryphone,  c.  81,  p.  179. 

'  Orat  c.  GrEBCOS,  c.  13,  p.  255 :  Kal  tovto  iatlv  ^qa  to  Elqrjfiivov  t^ 
axorla  to  q)Wg  ov  xarala/ii^dvei. 


^  19.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  57 

of  Paul,  but  rejected  others.''  His  so  called  Dlatessaron 
is  supposed  b_y  some  to  be  something  different  from  a 
harmony  of  the  Gospels.* 

3.  Athenagoras,  who  died  A.  C.  180,  quotes  Paul's 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  :  "  The  rest  is  manifest 
to  every  one,  that,  according  to  the  apostle,  this  cor- 
ruptible and  perishable  is  to  put  on  incorruption."  Com- 
pare 1  Cor.  XV.  54."  He  shows  a  general  acquaintance 
with  the  Pauline  writings,  but  his  citation  of  passages 
from  the  Gospels  proves  nothing.*^ 

4.  Theophilus,  who  wrote  about  A.  C.  180,  mentions 
the  sacred  Scriptures  in  general,  the  Gospel  of  John,  and 
the  other  Gospels.  He  says,  "And  so  in  regard  to  right- 
eousness, of  which  the  law  has  spoken,  there  is  found  to 
be  an  agreement  between  the  remarks  of  the  prophets 
and  the  Gospels,  because  all  the  inspired  have  spoken 
with  the  one  spirit  of  God."  "  And  in  respect  to 
holiness,  the  sacred  word  not  only  teaches  us  not  to  sin 
in  act,  but  not  even  in  thought."  "  The  evangelical  voice 
teaches  us  more  expressly  when  it  says  of  chastity,  '  He 
that  looketh  on  a  woman,  to  lust  after  her,  hath  com- 
mitted adultery,'  "  &.c.     Compare  Matt.  v.  28. 

"  Whence  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  all  the  inspired, 
teach  us,  among  whom  John  says,  *  In  the  beginning 
was  the  word,' "  &c.* 


"  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  ch.  xiii.  p,  147,  sqq. 

'  Ekhhom,  Einleit  ins  N.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  110,  sqq.  Credner,  1.  c.  p.  443,  sqq. 
On  the  opposite  side,  see  Olskausen,  Aechtheit  d.  Kan.  Evang.  p.  336.  See 
De  Wette's  Einleit  ins  N.  T,  §  68. 

'  De  Resurrectione,  c.  18,  p.  531 :  EiidrjXov  navxl  xb  Xemdfievop,  oxt 
del  xttTo:  xop  dndaxoi-ov  xb  (pOuqrbv  xovxo  xal  diaaxedaaxop  ivdvauadai 
6.(fi6aqaiav. 

^  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  ch.  xviii.  p.  193,  sqq. 

'  Ad  Autolycum,  iii.  12,  p.  338 :  ^'Exi  (i^v  xal  nsgl  dixauxrivrjg,  ^s  6 
vdfiog  ei'QTjxsv,  &x6Xovda  eiqlaxeiai,  xal  t&  xwy  ngocpTjxwv  xai  tav  eiayyB- 
VOL.    I.  8 


58  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^20. 

He  refers  also  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the 
Fh-st  Epistle  to  Timothy :  "And  also  the  divine  word  com- 
mands us  respecting  submission  to  governments  and 
authorities,  and  prayer  for  them,  that  we  may  lead  a 
quiet  and  peaceable  life."  Compare  1  Tim.  ii.  2,  and 
Rom.  x'm.  7,  8.'' 

He  may  have  used  the  Apocalypse.' 

5.  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth,  who  died  about  A.  C. 
170,  refers  to  Christian  writings  under  the  title  of  "  The 
Scriptures  of  the  Lord."" 

§20. 

EARLIEST  TRACES  OF  A   COLLECTION  OF  THE  WRITINGS  OF 
THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

In  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  we  find  in  the 
hands  of  Marcion  a  collection  of  ten  Pauline  Epistles,** 
and  a  Gospel  besides.  This,  according  to  the  Fa- 
thers, was  the  Gospel  of  Luke."     It  would  not  be  im- 

Xlmv  E%eiv,  dia  to  TOvg  TT&vTag  7ivevfiaioq)6govg  ivl  nvevfiaii,  &eov  XekaXij- 
xivat.  §  13.  Kul  negl  ae/uvorrjiog  ov  /norov  diddaxet  rifiag  6  dyiog  Idyog 
TO  firi  ufiaQTuvEii'  Boya,  ulla  xul  fu;(Qig  ifvolug,  xtI.  'H  8t  evuyyihog 
q)wvri  Innaziy.ihTeqov  diddaxei  negl  Aypslag  Xiyovaa'  flag  6  iSwv  yvvaTxa, 
ml.  Comp.  Matt  v.  28.  L.  ii.  c.  22,  p.  365  :  "  Odev  8i8&axovaiv  ij/jag  al  uyiui. 
ygacpitl,  xtd  nuvxeg  ol  nvEvjxaTO(p6goi^  i^  (iiv  ' Iw(xpi'i]g  liyei,  xil. 

"  "Eti  fi-^v  xal  negl  tov  inoT6.a(JBadat  dg%alg  xal  i^ovaUxig  xal  sv/sodin 
ineg  nvribv  xeXeiet  rifiag  6  S^Eiog  Idyog,  xtI.  [See  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  ch.  xx. 
p.  203,  sqq.] 

''  See  Eiisebius,  Hist.  Eccl,  lib.  iv.  c.  24.  The  account  of  Theophilus's 
Harmony  or  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  is  uncertain.  See  Jerome,  Epist.  ad 
Algasiam,  quest.  5.  0pp.  iv.  pt.  i.  p.  197.  Mart.  Prolog,  in  Com.  sup.  Matt. 
Catal.  Scriptt.  eccl.  c.  25.     See  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  214. 

"  Fgucpal  xvgiaxal.  See  Eusehius,  1.  c.  lib.  iv.  c.  23.  [Lardner,  vol.  ii. 
ch.  xii.  p.  144,  sqq.]     Comp.  §  22. 

^  See  Bertholdt,  1.  c.  p.  104,  sqq. 

'  SeelrencBus,  adv.  Hseres.  lib.  i.  c.  27;  lib.  iii.  c.  12,  12.  Tertidlian, 
cont  Marcion,   iv.  2 — 7;   v.  21.     Epiphanius,  Hseres.  xlii.  9,  10. 


§  20.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  59 

probable  that  this  collection  originated  in  Galatia  and 
Pontus,  and  was  the  first  and  original  collection,"  if  Mar- 
cion  had  not  lost  all  claim  to  credibility  by  his  critical 
caprice.* 

[We  have  no  reason,  says  Bertholdt,  for  supposing 
Marcion  was  the  author  of  the  collection  of  epistles 
called  "  The  Apostle,"  which  contained  his  "  Gospel  " 
also.  It  is  much  more  probable  that  he  found  the  col- 
lection already  made  in  Pontus,  and  carried  it  to  Italy. 
But  if  this  is  doubtful,  it  is  certain,  on  the  other  hand, 
that,  in  his  collection,  which  was  not  known  in  Italy  be- 
fore his  arrival,  the  following  Epistles  of  Paul  were  in- 
cluded, namely,  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ;  the  two  to 
the  Corinthians ;  those  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians,  and 
Philippians  ;  two  to  the  Thessalonians ;  that  to  the 
Colossians ;  and  the  Epistle  to  Philemon.  It  may  be 
asked  why  he  inserted  the  unimportant  Epistle  to  Phi- 
lemon, and  omitted  the  far  more  valuable  letters  to  Tim- 
othy and  Titus.  This  question  can  be  easily  answered, 
without  bringing  any  serious  objection  to  the  hypothesis 
that  the  collection  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
was  begun  in  Pontus,  and  only  continued  by  Marcion. 
The  Christians  in  Pontus  would  naturally  receive  the 
Epistles  from  Galatia  and  Colosse ;  the  geographical 
position  of  the  places  leads  us  to  this  inference.  Now, 
Philemon  lived  at  Colosse.  The  Epistle  to  him  would 
therefore  be  well  known  in  that  place,  and  would  naturally 
be  read  also  in  Pontus,  and  added  to  the  collection  of 

"  The  word  undaioXog,  which  subsequently  became  the  common  term  to 
designate  the  apostolical  Epistles,  is  derived,  by  Bertholdt,  1.  c.  p.  103,  sqq., 
from  Marcion.  See  also  Suiceri,  Thesaurus  Eccl,  p.  477.  But  Orell,  1.  c. 
p,  11,  has  shown  that  tlie  term  does  not  occur  in  writings  of  the  first  and 
second  century. 

>>  See  De  Wttte's  Einleit.  ins  N.  T.  §  34.  [This  subject  will  be  treated  at 
length  m  the  translator's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament] 


60  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^21. 

Paul's  more  valuable  writings.  But  the  letters  to  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  would  come  later  into  circulation,  because 
they  were  directed  to  private  individuals  living  in  places 
which  had  little  intercourse  with  the  Christians  of  Gala- 
tia  or  Colosse. 

He  thinks,  at  first,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  a  volume 
by  itself,  with  this  title,  "  The  Gospel."  The  ten  Epis- 
tles of  Paul  were  then  added  in  another  volume,  with 
the  title  "  The  Apostle."  This  collection  was  first 
made  in  Pontus,  and  brought  to  Italy  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.] " 

^21. 

TWO   COLLECTIONS    OF   THE   BOOKS    OF  THE    NEW   TES- 
TAMENT. 

About  the  end  of  the  second  and  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
had  spread  and  been  received  so  widely,  that  about  that 
time,  in  different  countries,  we  find  the  principal  teachers, 
Irenseus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Tertullian,  all  agree 
in  receiving  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
the  thirteen  Episdes  of  Paul,  the  First  Epistles  of  Peter 
and  John,  and  the  Apocalypse. 

1.  However,  there  is  a  difference  among  them  in 
respect  to  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  which  Irenaeus  and 
Clement  do  not  quote,  though  it  is  probable  they  were 
acquainted  with  it. 

2.  There  is  a  difference  in  respect  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  which  Clement  receives,''  but  which  Ire- 

"  [See  BertJwldt,  1.  c.  p.  104,  sqq.,  and  Lardmr,  vol.  vi.  p.  142,  sqq.,  347, 
sqq. ;  viii.  489,  sqq. ;  ii.  275,  sqq.,  and  elsewhere.] 

*  See  Stromat.  yi.  14,  and  Eusthius^  Hist.  Eccl,  yi.  14. 


^21.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  Gl 

iicEUS  and  Tertullian  do  not."  [Eichhorn  sajs  that 
Ireneeus  never  cites  this  Epistle  in  his  genuine  writings, 
though  he  might  have  made  a  fine  use  of  it,  had  he 
deemed  it  a  canonical  and  apostolical  work,  for  it  con- 
tains the  most  striking  arguments  against  the  Gnostics, 
and  in  favor  of  his  proposition  that  the  God  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  is  the  same.] 

3.  There  is  another  difference  in  regard  to  the  Second 
Epistle  of  John,  which  Irenseus  alone  quotes,*  although 
Clement  appears  to  have  known  it." 

4.  And  in  respect  to  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  which  is 
quoted  only  by  Clement  and  Tertullian.'' 

Clement  quotes  the  apocryphal  writings  of  the  Chris- 
tians, sometimes  with  distinct  reference  to  a  particular 
work,  —  for  example,  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyp- 
tians,*—  and  sometimes  without  referring  to  the  particu- 
lar book.^ 

The  Fathers  agree,  likewise,  in  the  use  of  two  collec- 
tions. The  one,  called  the  Evangile,  (JEvayyQuov, 
Instrumentum  Evangelicum,)  contained  the  four  Gospels. 
The  other,  called  the  Apostle,  (^ Ajioatokog,  Instru- 
mentum Apostolicum,^)  contained  the  Epistles  of  Paul, 

"  Photius,  Biblioth.  Cod.  232,  p.  477.  Compare  Eichhorn,  Einleit.  in  N. 
T.  vol.  iii.  p.  519,  sqq.     Tertullian,  De  Pudicit.  c.  20. 

*  Lib.  i.  c.  16,  §  3  ;  lib.  iii.  c.  16,  §  8. 

'  Stromat  lib.  ii.  p.  389.  Comp.  Eichhorn,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  322.  [Clement 
speaks  of  the  greater  Epistle  of  John,  whence  it  would  seem  he  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  less  also.] 

^  Stromat.  lib.  iii.  p.  431.  Pasdagog.  iii.  p.  239.  Tertvllian,  De  Habitu 
Mulierum,  c.  3. 

'  Stromat.  lib.  iii.  p.  465. 

/  L.  c.  lib.  i.  p.  356;  lib.  ii.  p.  375;  lib.  v.  p.  577;  lib.  vi.  pp.  635,  636, 
644,  678.     Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  245. 

^  Irenaus,  lib.  i.  c.  3,  6.  Clem.  Stromat.  lib.  v.  p.  561 ;  lib.  vi.  p. 
659;  lib.  vii.  p.  706.  Tertullian,  De  Pudicit.  c.  11,  12.  De  Baptismo, 
c.  15.  Contra  Mardon,  iv.  2.  Comp.  his  Epistle  ad  Diognetum,  c.  11, 
p.  240. 


62  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^^l. 

and  the  others,  which  were  aheady  united  together 
under  a  common  name." 

The  old  Sjriac  collection,  in  the  Peshito,  is  enlarged 
by  the  addition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  that 
of  James,  though  it  does  not  contain  the  Apocalypse, 
which  was  likewise  rejected  by  the  Alogi  and  by  Caius 
of  Rome.* 

There  is  a  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment contained  in  the  fragment  discovered  by  Muratori." 
If  we  may  judge  from  its  testimony  respecting  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas,  it  was  written  at  the  end  of  the 
second,  or  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  though 
Zimmermann  thinks  it  was  not  written  before  the 
fourth  century.'^  In  respect  to  the  Gospels,  the  Acts, 
and  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  this  catalogue  agrees  with  that 
of  the  Fathers  above  mentioned ;  but,  in  other  respects, 
it  differs  from  them,  and  is  obscure  in  some  places. 

[The  following  is  a  translation  of  a  part  of  the  cata- 
logue :  — 

"  The  Epistle  to  tlie  Laudenses  (Laodiceans  ?),  another 
to  the  Alexandrians,  and  many  others,  which  are  not 
received  in  the  Catholic  church,  were  forged  in  the 
name  of  Paul,  for  the  sake  of  supporting  Marcion's 
heresy.  But  gall  cannot  be  mingled  with  honey. 
The  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  two  inscribed  with  the 
name  of  John,  are  admitted  in  the  Catholic  church,  and 
so  are  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  which  was  written  by  the 

Clein.  Stromat  iii.  p.  455:  N6juos  re  ofiov  ^axl  Tiqocf>y\iai  avy  nal  la 
Bvayyeliw  iv  dvdfiuTt  Xgiajov  slg  (iluv  avydyofrat,  yvwaiv.  (?)  Tertull.  c. 
Prax.  c.  15.    Novum  Testamentum. 

'  Epiphaniiis,  Hseres.  lib.  v.  1.  i.  3.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iii.  28. 
Gieseler,  Text-Book  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  [translated  by  F.  Cunning- 
ham ;  Phil.  1836,  3  vols.  8vo.]  vol.  i.  p.  91,  sqq. 

'  Antiquit.  Ital.  Med.  JEv.  vol.  iii.  p.  854. 

^  Dissertatio  Scriptoris  incerti  de  Canone  Librorum,  sive  Fragmentum  a 
Muratorio  repertum,  exhibens ;  Jense,  1805,  p.  36,  sqq. 


^  22.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  63 

friends  of  Solomon,  in  honor  of  him,  and  the  Apocalypse 
of  John  :  of  Peter,  we  receive  only  one,  (Epistle,)  which 
some  of  us  are  unwilling  to  have  read  in  the  church." 
But  very  recently,  in  our  own  times,  Hernias  wrote 
the  Shepherd,  while  his  brother  Pius,  the  bishop,  occu- 
pied the  seat  of  the  church  of  the  city  of  Rome."  *  This 
catalogue  was  originally  written  in  Greek,  and  has 
suffered  sadly  at  the  hands  of  the  translator.  If  genu- 
ine, it  is,  undoubtedly,  the  oldest  catalogue  now  ex- 
tant.] ' 

§22. 

GROUNDS  ON  WHICH  THESE  BOOKS  WERE  RECEIVED. 

These  books  were  regarded  as  sacred  and  divine. 
Thus  Irenaeus  calls  them  "The  Divine  Scriptures ;" "^ 
"  The  Oracles  of  God ;  the  Lord's  Scripture."  He  says, 
"The  Scriptures,  indeed,  are  perfect,  since  they  are  dic- 
tated by  the  Logos  of  God  and  his  Spirit."'' 

"  [See  the  above  translation  of  this  ambiguous  passage  justified  by  Hug, 
Introduction  to  the  N.  T.  pp.  76,  77,  Fosdick^s  translation.  Bertholdt,  p. 
114,  sqq.,  would  render  the  whole  passage  as  follows:  — "  ?fe  lUcewise  re- 
ceive the  Apocalypse  of  John  and  Peter ^''  &c.  Perhaps  this  is  the  true  ver- 
sion.]    See  Guerike,  zur  hist.  krit.  Einleit.  ins  N.  T.  p.  11,  sqq. 

''  Fertur  etiam  ad  Laudenses  (Laodicenses  ?),  alia  ad  Alexandrinos, 
Pauli  nomine  ficts  ad  hseresem  Marcionis,  et  alia  plura,  quse  in  Catholicam 
ecclesiam,  recipi  non  potest  Fel  enim  cum  melle  misceri  non  congruit. 
Epistola  sane  Judte  etsuperscripti  Johannisduas(duiE)  inCatholica  habentur. 
Et  Sapientia,  ab  amicis  Salomonis  in  honorem  ipsius  scripta.  Apocalypsis 
etiam  Johannis  et  Petri  tantum  recipimus :  quam  quidam  ex  nostris  legi  in 
ecclesia  nolunt  Pastorem  vero  nuperrime  temporibus  nostris  in  urbe 
Roma  Herma  conscripsit,  sedente  cathedra  urbis  RomaB  ecclesise  Pio  epis- 
copo  fratre  ejus.  Et  ideo  legi  eum  quidem  oportet;  se  publicare  vero  in 
ecclesia  populo,  neque  inter  Prophetas  completum  numero,  neque  inter 
apostolos  in  finem  temporum  potest 

"  Hug  places  it  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century. 

■^  Lib.  ii.  27,  1 :  ^etat  yqacpal. 

'  Lib.  i.  8,  1 :  Td  Uytu  tov  &eov.     Lib.  v.  20,  2 :  Dominicse  Scripturse. 


64  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  22. 

Again,  Clement  of  Alexandria  says  of  them,  "  Accord- 
ing to  the  God-inspired  Scriptures.  The  Holy  Spirit 
speaks  in  the  Apostle,  [that  is,  in  the  writings  of  the 
apostles,]  and  likewise  the  Scriptures,  in  which  we 
trust — having  shown  that  they  are  divine  from  their 
surpassing  excellence  —  to  show  that  there  is  one  God, 
who  is  truly  proclaimed  by  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
and  also  by  the  blessed  Gospel."" 

Tertullian  says,  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  declared  by 
means  of  the  apostles,"  &c.* 

[Irenaeus  always  claims  a  high  degree  of  inspiration  for 
the  writers  of  the  Bible.  "  Matthew,"  says  he,  "  in  the 
beginning  of  his  Gospel,  would  have  written  the  birth  of 
Jesus.  But  the  Holy  Spirit,  knowing  a  deceiver  would 
arise,  and  represent  Jesus  as  different  from  the  Christ, 
writes,  by  means  of  Matthew,  '  The  birth  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  on  this  wise.' "  He  thinks  the  writer  does  not 
select  his  own  words,  but  they  are  dictated  to  him  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  foresaw  the  exigencies  of  future 
times.  Perhaps  he  was  led  to  this  strange  doctrine 
by  seeing  the  follies  of  the  Gnostics,  who  ascribed  a 
very  low  degree  of  inspiration  to  most  of  the  scriptural 
writers.'] 

Scripturse   quidem  prophete   sunt,  quippe  a  Verbo   Dei   et  Spiritus   ejus 
dictse. 

Clem.  Alex.  Stxom.  vii.  p.  761 :  Kardc  rdc  ■dsonvevajovg  yqacfit.?.  Psed. 
i.  p.  106:  Tb  h  tw  cxTroffT^Aw  uyiov  nvevfiu  Uysi.  Strom,  iv.  p.  475:  'I2g  kuI 
Tug  YQ(xcpag,ttts  nETnaTSvxa/iiev  xvglag  oiiaug  i^  avdevTEiug  nav70KQaroQr/.i]g 
ini8eiS,avTEg  ....  eva  Seixpvvca  dsbv  ....  xbv  Sidi  v6fiov  xal  nQOCprjnn'  nndg 
(Jt  xal  tov  fiaxaQlov  E-vayyEllov  yprjaimg  xExrjQvyfiifOf.  [The  above  transla- 
tion differs  somewhat  from  that  in  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  247,  and  in  Potter's 
edition  of  Clement,  vol.  i.  p.  564  ;  but  the  difference  is  not  important  in  the 
present  connection.] 

''  Tertullian,  De  Patientia,  c.  7:  Spiritus  Domini  per  apostolum  pronun- 
ciavit     Comp.  c.  12. 

'  See  Munscher,  1.  c.  p.  343,  sqq. 


§22.]  THE    NEW    TESTAxMENT    COLLECTION.  65 

These  books  were  likewise  regarded  as  the  true  source 
of  the  doctrines  and  history  of  Christianity,  as  the  canon, 
(xaviov.)  Thus  Irenseus  says,  "  We  ha.ve  understood  the 
condition  of  our  salvation  through  no  others  than  these 
very  men  by  whom  the  gospel  came  down  to  us,  which, 
indeed,  they  did  then  orally  publish,  but  afterwards,  l)y 
the  will  of  God,  delivered  to  us  [written]  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, to  be  the  foundation  and  column  of  our  faith. 
If  any  one  assents  not  to  these,  he  despises  the  fellow- 
workers  of  the  Lord.  Yea,  he  despises  Christ  the  Lord 
himself.  Yea,  he  despises  even  the  Father,  and  is  con- 
demned by  himself,  resisting,  and  conflicting  with  his 
own  faith,  as  all  the  heretics  do." 

"Therefore  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  (John,)  wishing  to 
write  of  all  such  things,  and  to  establish  a  standard  of  truth 
in  the  church,  that  there  is  one  omnipotent  God,"  &c. 

"  But  we,  following  the  Teacher,  the  one  and  only 
true  God,  and  having  his  words  as  the  standard  of 
truth,"  &c." 

Again,  Clement  of  Alexandria  says,  "What  then? 
Do  not  they  who  assent  to  all  things  rather  than  to  the 
evangelical  standard  of  truth  take  the  rest  of  what  was 
spoken  to  Solomon?"* 

"  Iren(Bus,  lib.  iii.  1 :  Non  per  alios  dispositionem  salutis  nostrse  cog- 
novimus,  quam  per  eos,  per  quos  evangelium  pervenit  ad  nos,  quod  quidem 
tunc  prfBconaverunt,  postea  vero  per  Dei  voluntatem  in  Scripturis  nobis 
tradiderunt,  y«n(/amer!<Mm  et  columnamjidei  nostrcBfuturum. 

Q,uibus  si  quis  non  assentit,  spernit  quidem  participes  Domini,  spernit 
autem  et  ipsum  Christum  Dominum,  spernit  vero  et  Patrem,  et  est  a  semet 
ipso  damnatus,  resistens  et  repugnans  fidei  suae  ;  quod  faciunt  omnes  haeretici. 

Lib.  iii.  11, 1 :  Omnia  igitur  talia  circumscribere  volens  discipulus  Domini 
(Johannes)  et  regulam  veritatis  constituere  in  ecclesia,  quia  est  unus  Deus 
omnipotens,  etc. 

Lib.  iv.  35,  4 :  Nos  autem  unum  et  solum  verum  Deum  doctorem  sequentes 
et  regulam  veritatis  habentes  ejus  sermones. 

*"  Clem.  Alex.  Stromat.  1.  iii.  p.  453:  Tide;  ov/l  xal  toc  l^rji;  tw^  nqbg 
VOL.  I.  9 


66  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [§22 

Tertiillian  sajs  the  Roman  church  "  mingles  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets  with  the  evangelical  and  apostolical 
writings.  Thence  it  receives  (drinks)  faith.  Now  if 
the  writings  of  the  apostles  have  come  down  to  us  un- 
corrnpted,  and  Luke,  which  is  in  our  hands,  agrees  so 
well  with  their  standard  that  it  remains  with  them  in 
the  churches,  then  it  appears  that  Lids-e  also  has  come 
down  to  us  uncorriipted."" 

These  books  were  regarded  in  this  light  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons :  — 

L  On  account  of  their  internal  truthfulness.  Irenaeus 
appeals  to  this,  and  says,  "Neither  can  they  show  that 
Luke  is  a  liar ;  but  he  proclaims  the  truth  to  us  with  all 
diligence ;  and,  perhaps,  God  caused  many  things  in  the 
gospel  to  be  related  by  Luke,  that  all  might  have  what 
is  necessary  to  use;  so  that  all  —  following  the  regular 
and  consecutive  evidence  which  he  gives  in  relation  to 
the  actions  and  doctrines  of  the  apostles,  and  having 
the  unadulterated  standard  of  the  truth — might  be 
saved.  His  testimony,  therefore,  is  true,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  apostles  is  made  manifest,  and  firmly 
established,  &c.  But  if  any  one  would  refute  Luke, 
[accusing  him,]  as  if  he  had  not  understood  the  truth, 
it  is  evident  [such  a  one]  rejects  the  gospel ;  for  Luke 
is  esteemed  the  disciple  of  it.  The  most  important  and 
the  most  necessary  things  in  the  gospel  we  know 
through   him  [alone;]    for  example,  the  generation  of 


^ahbfiijv  el^tjftbi'Mf  intcfiQovair,  ol  ndviu  juuXlof  ?)  tc5  y.uiCc  ttjJ'  uh\deiuv 
tvuyyelty.w  aTOt;(i\auvTeg  nnv6»i  ; 

Tertidl.  De  Praescript  Hferet.  c.  36:  Legem  et  Prophetas  cum  evangeli- 

cis  et  apostolicis  litteris  miscet  (ecclcsia  Romana).    Inde  portat(potat)  fidem. 

C.  Marc.  iv.  5 :  Si  enini  apostxilica  integre  decucurrerunt,  Lucas  autem, 

quod  est  secundum  nos,  adeo  congruit  rtgula:.  eorum,  ut  cum  illis  apud 

ec(;lesias  maneat:  jam  et  Lucaj  constat  integrum  decucurrisse. 


5^  22.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  67 

John,  the  history  of  Zachariah,  &c.  All  things  of  tliis 
kind  we  learn  from  Luke  alone,  and  many  actions  of 
the  Lord  we  learn  fiom  him,  which  we  all  make  nse  of. 
And  there  are  many  others  that  can  only  be  learned 
from  Luke,  which  both  Marcion  and  Valentine  have 
made  use  of."" 

2.  On  account  of  their  authors.  Thus  Tertullian 
says,  "  In  the  first  place,  we  determine  that  the  gospel 
has  the  apostles  for  its  authors,  upon  whom  the  duty 
of  publishing  the  gospel  was  imposed  by  the  Lord  him- 
self; so  it  has  for  its  authors,  not  only  apostolic  men, 
[that  is,  disciples  of  the  apostles,]  but  also  men  who 
lived  with  the  apostles,  and  after  the  apostles ;  since 
the  preachiu":  of  the  disciples  might  have  been  suspected 
of  a  desire  of  glory,  if  it  had  not  been  asserted  by  the 
authority  of  masters,  even  by  Christ  himself,  who  had 
appointed  the  apostles  as  masters.  Finally,  John  and 
Matthew,  two  of  the  apostles,  inspire  us  with  faith ; 
Luke  and  Mark,  two  of  the  apostolic  men,  relying  on  the 

"  Iren.  iii.  15,  1 :  Neque  Lucam  mendacem  esse  possunt  ostendere,  veri- 
tatem  nobis  cum  omni  dilig'entia  annunciantem.  Fortassis  enim  et  propter 
hoc  operatus  est  Deus  plurima  evangelii  ostendi  per  Lucam,  quibus  ne- 
cessc  haberent  oinnes  uti,  ut  sequent!  testification!  ejus,  quam  habet  de  actibus 
et  doctrina  apostolorum,  omnes  sequentes  et  regulam  verifatis  inadulteratam 
liabentes  salvari  possint.  Igitur  testificatio  ejus  vera  et  doctrina  apostolo- 
rum manifesta  et  firma,  etc. 

Lib.  iii.  14,  3:  Si  quis  auteni  refutet  Lucam,  quasi  non  cognoverit  verita- 
tem,  manifestus  erit  projiciens  evangelium,  cujus  dignatur  esse  discipulus. 
Plurima  enim  et  magis  necessaria  evangelii  per  hunc  cognovimus,  sicut 
Joannis  generationem  et  de  Zacharia  historiam,  &c. 

Et  o.'unia  hujus  modi  per  solum  Lucam  cognovimus  et  plurimos  actus  Dom- 
ini per  hunc  didicimus,  quibus  ovmes  iduntw- Et  alia  multa  sunt,  qua? 

inveniri  possunt  a  solo  Luca  dicta  esse,  quibus  et  Marcion  et  Valentinus 
utuntur.  —  Here,  however,  the  question  relates  merely  to  the  credibility,  not 
to  the  genuineness.  See  Siisskind's  Essay,  "  On  what  Grounds  did  Irenseus 
maintain  tlie  Genuineness  of  our  four  Gospels  ?  "  in  FlaWs  Magazin  f.  christl. 
Dogmat.,  &c.  vol.  vi.  p.  95,  sq.  Here  he  opposes  Eckermann^s  Theol.  Beitrage, 
B.  V.  St.  2.,    See  TerluU.  c.  Marc.  iv.  9.     See  below,  No.  9. 


68  IIISTOUY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^^  22. 

same  standards,  afford  us  a  supplement  to  the  Lav/  and 
the  Prophets,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  only  God,  the 
Creator,  and  his  Christ,  born  of  a  virgin."" 

Eusebius,  quoting  from  Clement  of  Alexandria,  says, 
"  It  is  said  the  apostle,  [Peter,]  knowing  what  was 
done,  authenticated  the  v/riting,  [the  Gospel  of  Mark,] 
that  it  might  be  read  in  the  churches."  * 

3.  On  account  of  the  confidence  felt  in  the  tradition 
by  which  these  writings  were  supported.  So  Clement 
of  Alexandria  writes,  "  The  first  statement  is  not  in  the 
four  Gospels  delivered  to  us,  but  in  that  according  to  the 
Egyptians."  Tertullian  declares,  "  If  it  is  admitted  that 
what  is  earliest  is  the  truest,  and  that  is  earliest  which 
is  from  the  beginning,  and  that  w  hich  is  from  the  begin- 
ning proceeds  from  the  apostles,  it  must  likewise  be 
admitted  that  that  is  transmitted  from  the  apostles 
which  has  been  held  as  most  sacred  in  the  churches  of 
the  apostles.  Let  us  see  what  milk  the  Corinthians 
drew  from  Paul ;  by  what  standard  the  Galatians  were 
corrected  ;  what  the  Philippians,  the  Thessalonians,  and 
the  Ephesians,  read,  and  what  the  Romans  recite,  [sound 
forth,]  to  whom  Peter  and  Paul  have  left  the  gospel, 
sealed   with   their  blood.     We  have  churches  that  are 


"  Tertull.  c.  Marc.  iv.  2 :  Constituimus  imprimis,  evang-elicum  instrumen- 
tum  apostolos  auctores  habere,  quibas  hoc  munus  evangelii  promulgandi  ab 
ipso  Domino  sit  impositum ;  si  et  apostolicos,  non  tamen  solos,  sed  cum  apos- 
tolis  ei  post  apostolos ;  quoniam  pradicatio  discipulorum  suspecta  fieri  posset 
dc  gloriie  studio,  si  non  assistat  illi  auctoritas  magistrorum,  imo  Christi,  qus 
magistros  apostolos  fecit.  Denique  nobis  fidem  ex  apostolis  Johannes  et 
Matthajus  insinuant,  ex  apostolicis  Lucas  et  Marcus  instaurant,  iisdem  regu- 
lis  exorsi,  quantum  ad  unicum  Deum  attinet  Creatorem,  et  Christum  ejus, 
natum  ex  virgine,  supplementum  legis  et  prophetarum.  See  Lardner,  vol.  ii. 
p.  373. 

*  Eitseb.  IT.  E.  li.  15,  from  Clem.  Alex.  Hypotyp. :  Fyiviu  8e  ib  ngaxdev, 
q>aal,  rbf  dLjrocnoXov  [nirQOi')  xvowara  t»jJ'  yonrp^v  [tov  M<iQXov)  als  fiV- 
TEv^ir  TuTg  ixylsolnig.     Comp.  TtrtvU.  c.  Marc.  iv.  5.  , 


§23.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  69 

the  pupils  of  John I  saj,  also,  that  not  only  in  the 

apostolical,  but  in  all  the  churches  that  are  confederated 
with  them  by  sharing  the  same  sacrament,  the  Gospel 
of  Luke,  which  we  especially  regard,  has  continued  ever 
since  its  first  publication." 

He  says  in  another  place,  "But  come,  examine  the 
apostolical  churches,  in  which  the  very  chairs  of  the 
apostles  still  preside  ;  in  which  the  very  authentic  letters 
are  read,  sounding  forth  the  voice  and  representing  the 
face  of  each  of  them." " 

§23. 

THE   CANON   OF   ORIGEN. 

Origen  occupies  the  same  ground ;  *  but,  while  he  ac- 
knowledges the  above  works,  generally  received,  he  has 
doubts,  more  or  less  strong,  respecting  each  of  the  fol- 
lowing books,  namely:  1.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews; 
2.  the  Epistle  of  James  ;  3.  the  Second  Epistle  of  Pe- 

"  Clem.  Strom.  1.  iii.  p.  4G5 :  FIqwioi'  uiv  ohv  if  Tolg  nagadedofiifoi; 
■fifut'  if.nuqaiv  evuyyehoig  ova  e/oftsi'  ib  (jijibv,  «AA'  iv  tw  xut^  Alyvmlovg. 

Tertull.  c.  Marc.  iv.  5 :  Si  constat,  id  verius  quod  prius,  id  priiis  quod 
et  ab  initio,  ab  initio  quod  ab  apostolis :  pariter  utique  constabit,  id  esse  ab 
apostolis  traditum,  quod  apud  ecclesias  apostolorum  fuerit  sacrosandum. 
Videamus,  quod  lac  a  Paulo  Corinthii  liauserint ;  ad  quam  regulam  GalatiB 
sint  recorrecti ;  quid  legant  Philippenses,  Thessalonicenses,  Ephesii ;  quid 
etiam  Romani  de  proximo  sonent,  quibus  evangelium  et  Petrus  et  Paulus 
sano'uine  quoque  suo  signatum  reliquerunt.     Habemus  et  Johannis  alumnas 

ecclesias Dico  itaque  apud  illas,  nee  solas  jam  apostolicas,  sed  apud 

universas,  qua;  illis  de  societate  sacramenti  confoederantur,  id  evangeliuni 
Lucse  ab  initio  editionis  suae  stare,  quod  cummaxime  tuemur.     De  PrEEscript. 

c.  36 :  Age  eam percurre  ecclesias  apostolicas,  apud  quas  ipsa?  adhuc 

cathcdrfe  apostolorum  suis  locis  prsesidentur,  apud  quas  aidfienticfB  litercB 
eorum  recitantur,  sonantes  vocem,  reprsesentantes  faciem.  See  Lardner,  vol. 
ii.  p.  284. 

*  On  the  subject  of  his  canon,  see  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  vi.  25.  Lard- 
ner, vol.  ii.  p.  493,  sqq. 


70  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^23. 

ter ;  4.  the  Second  and  Third  of  John  ;  5.  the  Epistle 
of  Jude. 

1.  Of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  he  sajs,  "The 
style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  not  the  apostle's 
vulgarity  of  diction,  for  he  confesses  himself  to  be  rude 
in  speech,  that  is,  in  phraseology.  But  every  one,  who 
is  able  to  distinguish  the  diversities  of  style,  must  con- 
fess that  this  Epistle  is  more  })urely  Greek  in  the  compo- 
sition of  its  sentences."  And  again,  "  The  thoughts  of 
this  Epistle  are  admirable,  and  not  inferior  to  any  of  the 
writings  acknowledged  to  be  apostolic.  Every  one  will 
confess  the  truth  of  this,  who  reads  the  writings  of  the 
apostle."  To  these  remarks  he  subsequently  adds, 
"And  I  would  agree  that  the  thoughts  are  the  apostle's, 
but  the  style  and  arrangement  belong  to  some  one  who 
remembered  the  thoughts  of  the  apostle,  and  wrote  com- 
mentaries on  the  words  of  his  teacher.  If,  then,  any 
church  receives  this  as  the  Epistle  of  Paul,  let  it  be  com- 
mended therefore,  since  the  men  of  old  time  did  not 
without  cause  deliver  it  to  us  as  Paul's.  But  who  it  was 
that  wrote  the  Epistle,  of  a  truth  God  only  knows.  But 
before  our  time,  it  was  the  prevalent  opinion  of  some,  that 
Clement,  who  was  bishop  of  Rome,  wrote  the  Epistle, 
and  of  others  that  it  was  written  by  Luke,  who  wrote 
also  the  Gospel,  and  the  Acts."" 


"  Eusehius,  1.  c. :  "  On  6  xagaxtriQ  rijc  Xi^Sbig  ttj?  ngbg  'E^galovg  iniys- 
yQafifiivi]g  enicnoXrig  ovx  tx^i-  to  ^y  Xdya  IdicoTixov  tov  dnoaidlor,  ofioXoyi'i- 
auVTog  iavxbv  iSimr^v  elvau  tw  Xbya,  lovxiati  ir^  (pgtxaer  dAi'  iari*'  t) 
iniaioXy\  avi'diaet  ttjj  XiS.siog  kl.hjviyMiiou,  nag  6  intcndfisvog  xqIveip 
cpouaeu);  diacpoQug  ouoloyr^aai  av.  JTuliP  re  uv-  on  tu  roi'ifunu  ttj; 
eniarohr^;  (tuvfiuai(j.  tan,  xul  ov  devieQu  iwy  u.7ioaToXiy.u)f  uuo).oyoviiEV(x)V 
yQ(tf/uuni)>',  xul  roDro  &>>  aiifi(p-i\cr(xi  e.Jt'ai,  uhjOhg,  nag  6  nQoasxuii'  jfi  dvuy- 
vbXTEi,  7Tj  unoaioXixr^.  Tovroig /heO'  iiegn  tnicpiqei  XiytxiV'  'EyCo  dt  unocpuivd- 
ucrog  i-Yaotu'  (ir,  Zn  id  filv  vo't\uuTa  lov  Ccnoazdlov  iaiU-,  ■))  St  cpQumg  xul  VJ 
avvOeaig  uno/n'ijiioi'Fvaui'Tuc  t»'oc  tu  unoarolixd  xal  ihanFQsl  axoXioyQacf^i- 


^  23.]     THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  COLLECTION.        71 

2.  Epistle  of  James.  He  says,  "As  we  read  in  the 
Epistle  attributed  to  James."'' 

3.  Epistles  of  Peter.  "And  Peter  left  one  acknowl- 
edged Epistle ;  grant  that  he  wrote  a  second,  but  it  is 
doubted." " 

4.  Epistles  of  John.  "  He  [John]  left  an  Epistle  of 
a  very  few  verses.  Grant  that  he  wrote  the  Second  and 
Third  Epistles  also  ;  but  all  do  not  say  that  they  are 
genuine."" 

5.  The  Epistle  of  Jude.  "  Jude  wrote  an  Epistle 
consisting  of  but  few  verses,  yet  filled  with  words  of 
heavenly  grace."  Again  he  says,  "  If  any  one  should 
ascribe  the  Epistle  to  Jude,"  fcc.*^ 

He  does  not  distinguish,  with  sufficient  clearness,  the 
apocryphal  from  the  canonical  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  appears  from  the  following  sentences  :  "  I 
think  Hermas  was  the  author  of  that  book  which  is  called 
the  Shepherd.  It  seems  to  me  a  very  useful  writing, 
and,  as  I  think,  is  divinely  inspired."  And  yet  again  he 
speaks  of  it  in  a  different  way  :  "  If  any  one  may  ven- 
ture to  quote  such  a  saying,  from  a  vrriting  which  is 

ouvTogra  elgrjiuifa  ino  rov  SidaaxaXov.  EI'tiq  ovv  ixxlrjatu  E%et  ravirjv  rijv 
imacoX-rji'  cbs  ITav}.ov,avTi]  euSoxiitFlTO)  inl  lovnr  ov  jdocixTJ  ol  d-oxnlot^  ui'- 
dge;  coc  UavXov  avjr^v  ■naoadedwxuat.  Tig  de  6  yoitfntg  tt^v  inifTTo)J]i',  to  ftiy 
^hjdiC  ■O'eog  older.  'Hde  elg  rjtiag  (fdi'jLonaa  iawQla,  ino  rit'wv  ^dv  Asjor- 
Tw»',  on  l0.r^f/r]g  6  yerdftsfog  inlayonog  'Poiualuiv  eyQuipe  ri^v  lniatoXi]v, 
VTio  Ti,vo}v  ds,  ort  Aovxag  6  yqinpag  to  eiayytl-iov  xal  tccc  nQu^eig. 

"  'Slg  iv  Trj  q)SQOfiiyri  'Iay.(hf^ov  diviyvm/itsi',  Origen,  Comm.  in  Johan. 
vol.  iv.  p.  306. 

*•  ITiTQog  8b julav  iniaioXfiv  of.ioloyovfiivrjv  xaTaliXoinsi"  £(ttw  6h 

xul  devTeoav  d.ficpi^'Ji.X'KeTai  y&Q-     Euseh.  1.  c. 

"  KaTaliloiTTB  [' lomvvi^g)  dt  xnl  ^711(jtoXi]v  ndw  ollyoiv  (ttI^cov  earot 
ds  yul  devregav  xcd  tqIttjv  inel  oi  rrdPTEg  (p.aol  yvrjclov.-  eji'ctt,  Tavrag. 
Euseh.  1.  c. 

'^  'lovdag  lyqaypEv  l7tiaioXi\v,  hhyoariyov  /ithv,  nEnXr^ooynivrjv  Se  twv 
Trig  odgai'iov  y&Qi^^og  IggtDixipwv  l6yo)i'.  Comm.  in  Matt.  vol.  iii.  p.  463.  El 
dk  xal  T^v  ^lovda  ngdaoird  jig  ^TTtaroA.rji',  lb.  p.  814. 


72  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [%  23. 

indeed  admitted  into  the  church,  but  is  not  acknowl- 
edged by  all  to  be  divine,  this  may  be  taken  from  the 
Shepherd."  Again,  "  In  the  book  of  the  Shepherd,  if 
any  one  thinks  that  writing  is  to  be  received." 

He  thus  refers  to  other  apocryphal  writings  :  "  Now, 
it  is  written  in  the  Catholic  Epistle  of  Barnabas." 
"  Since  that  book  [the  Doctrine  of  Peter]  is  not  reck- 
oned among  the  ecclesiastical  books,  the  reason  whereof 
can  be  shown,  namely,  because  it  is  neither  the  writing 
of  Peter,  nor  of  any  other  man,  who  was  inspired  by 
the  spirit  of  God."" 

Origen  recognizes  both  of  these  collections,  the  Gos- 
pel and  Apostle,  and  also  that  of  the  New  Testament  as 
a  whole.*  He  bases  his  acknowledgment  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  as  divine,  and  as  the  sources  of 
truth,  upon  the  inspiration  of  their  authors,  and  the  tra- 
dition of  the  church.  He  says,  "As  formerly,  among 
the  Jewish  people,  many  pretended  to  prophecy,  and 
were  indeed  false  prophets, ...  so  likewise  in  the  New 
Testament  many  have  attempted  to  write  Gospels,  but 
all  are  not  received.  And  so  you  must  know  that  not 
only  four^  but  many  Gospels  have  been  written,  from 
which  those  that  we  have  are  selected,  and  handed 
down  by  the  churches.     We  may  learn  this  fact  from 

"  Puto,  quod  Ilermas  iste  sit  scriptor  libelli  illius,  qui  Pastor  appellatur, 
quae  sci-iptura  valde  mihi  utilis  videtur,  et,  at  puto,  divinitus  inspirata.  Coinm. 
in  Ep.  ad  Rom.  vol.  iv.  683.  On  the  contrary,  El  XQ^  jol/nriaavia  xal  (irro 
Tii'og  cpeonfdftjg  fiiv  iv  t^  iy.y.hjala  yQ((qy\:,  oi5  jraqd  nuat,  ds  dfioloyov/nivijg 
c7»'rtt -L^f /«c  xal  TOtovTOV  7juQttfivOi\ai<udai,  l)]Cpdclrj  ^v  y.ul  (xno  tov  noi/iti'og. 
Comm.  in  Matt.  vol.  iii.  p.  644.  —  In  libello  Pastoris,  si  cui  tamen  scriptura  ilia 
recipienda videtur.  Homil.  viii.  in  Num.  vol.  ii.  p.  294.  —  reyQaTrrat,  dy)  tv  ifj 
BuovdiSu  xadohxri  intdTolr^.  C.  Cels.  i.  63.  vol.  i.  p.  378.  —  Quoniam  ille  liber 
(Petri  Doctrina)  inter  libros  ecclesiasticos  non  habetur,  et  ostendenduin  est, 
quia  neque  Petn  est  scriptura,  neque  (dterius  cujxisquam,  qui  spiritu  Dei  fuc- 
rit  inspiratus.  De  Princ.  Praef.  vol.  i.  p.  49.     [See,  also,  Miinschtr,  1.  c.  §  51, 52.] 

'  Horn.  xix.  in  Jerem.  vol.  iii.  p.  264. 


^23.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  73 

the  exordium  of  Luke  ;  for  the  remark  he  makes,  they 
'  have  taken  in  hand,'  contains  a  latent  accusation 
against  those  who  rushed  to  the  writing  of  Gospels, 
without  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Matthew,  Mark, 
John,  and  Luke,  indeed,  have  not  '  taken  in  hand '  to 
write,  but,  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  wrote  the  Gos- 
pels  The  church  (following  the  ecclesiastical  stand- 
ard mentioned  by  Eusebius)  receives  four  Gospels ;  the 
heretics  have  many,  among  which  are  those  according 
to  the  Egyptians,  and  according  to  the  twelve  Apostles. 

But  of  all  three,  we  approve  nothing,  except  what 

the  church  approves  ;  that  is,  only  four  Gospels  are  to 
be  received."  Again :  "  But  now  it  were  tedious  to 
stop  and  inquire,  concerning  this  book,  (the  Doctrine  of 
Peter,)  whether  it  is  genuine,  or  spurious,  or  mixed."" 

[Origen  makes  use  of  but  two  specific  terms  to  desig- 
nate the  religious  writings  of  the  Christians,  namely, 
the  Gospel  and  the  Apostle.*  But,  as  these  two  sep- 
arate collections  seem  gradually  to  have  united  into  one, 

"  Sicut  olim  in  populo  JudEeorum  multi  prophetiam  poUicebantur,  et  qui 

dem  erant  pseudoprophetae :  ita  et  in  Novo  Testamento  multi  conati  sunt 

scribere  Evangelia,  sed  non  omnes  recepti.  Et  ut  sciatis  non  solum  quatuor 
Evangelia,  sed  plurima  esse  conscripta,  ex  quibus  haec,  quae  habemus,  electa 

sunt  et  tradita  ecclesiis,  ex  ipso  procemio  Lucae  —  cognoscamus Hoc, 

quod  ait,  conati  sunt,  latentem  habet  accusationem  eorum,  qui  absque  gratia 
spiritus  sancti  ad  scribenda  Evangelia  prosilierunt.  Matthaeus  quippe  et 
Marcus  et  Johannes  et  Lucas  non  sunt  conati  scribere,  sed  spiritu  sancto  picni 

scripserunt  Evangelia Ecclesia  (xaid  ibv  Exxhjaiaanxdf  rnxvova  Eu- 

seb.  vi.  25)  quatuor  habet  Evangelia,  haereses  plurima ;  e  quibus  quoddam 

scribitiu-  secundum  ^Egyptios,  aliud  juxta  duodecim  Apostolos Sed 

in  his  omnibus  nihil  aliud  probamus,  nisi  quod  ecclesia,  i.  e.  quatuor  tantum 

Evangelia  recipienda.     Homil.  i.  in  Luc.  iii.  p.  933.  —  IIolv  di  lun  vvv 

IcTTttadat,  TTQo;  avid  l^Ej&Cpvxag  Hal  neqi  tov  ^i^Uov  [IHtqov  icrj^vy/naTOc), 
ndisQOP  7T0TE  yvr^aiov  tcni,  i)  vodov,  t)  jutxiov.     Com.  in  Johan.  iv.  p.  226. 

*  See  Origen,  Hom.  in  Jerem.  0pp.  iii.  p.  164.  De  Princ.  iv.  c.  i.  0pp. 
i.  p.  156. 

VOL.    I.  10 


74  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  23. 

he  calls  their  collected  writings  the  New  Testament. 
He  is  the  first  writer  who  divides  all  the  religious 
writings  common  amongst  the  Christians  into  three 
classes  —  genuine,  spurious,  and  mixed."  Among  the 
mixed  writings,  we  are  probably  to  place  such  as  were 
received  by  some  catholic  churches,  and  rejected  by 
others,  or  those  which  Eusebius  afterwards  called  the 
contested  writings.  Origen  has  not  expressly  informed 
us  what  books  he  enumerated  in  either  class,  but  it  may 
be  determined  from  remarks  he  has  elsewhere  made. 
The  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  the  twelve  Epistles  of  Paul, 
the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  First  of  John,  were 
incontestably  genuine  and  divine  writings.  Probably, 
also,  he  reckoned  the  Apocalypse  among  them.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  the  following  were  of  less  value,  and 
belonged  to  the  mixed  writings,  namely,  the  Epistles  of 
Jude,  Barnabas,  the  Second  and  Third  of  John,  and  per- 
haps the  Epistle  of  James,  and  the  Second  of  Peter. 
Finally,  he  considers  as  spurious  the  Preaching  of  Peter, 
and  several  of  the  Gospels  then  current.  He  deter- 
mined the  rank  and  value  of  writings  l)y  their  genuine- 
ness, and  the  fact  that  they  were  the  work  of  inspired 
men.  But  his  opinion  about  inspiration  is  fluctuating. 
At  one  time  he  says,  all  the  apparent  contradictions  of 
the  Bible  arise  from  the  interpreter's  ignorance ;  that 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  contain  the  same  doc- 
trine, only  veiled  in  the  one  and  unveiled  in  the  other  ; 
and  yet  says  the  writings  of  the  apostles  are  not  equal 
to  those  of  the  prophets,  which  begin,  "  Thus  saith  the 
Almighty  God,"  and  doubts  whether  Paul  included  his 
own  writings  when  he  said,  "All   Scripture  given  by 

"  Origen,  Com.  in  Johan.  iv.  0pp.  iv.  p.  226. 


^  24.]     THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  COLLECTION.        75 

inspiration,  and   profitable  ;  "    for  the  apostle  sometimes 
writes,  "  I  say,  and  not  the  Lord,"  &c.] " 

The  Apocalypse  was  doubted  by  Dionysius  of  Alex- 
andria.* 

%24. 

THE   CANON   OF   EUSEBIUS. 

Eusebius,  the  diligent  investigator  and  learned  histo- 
rian of  the  church,  treats  in  detail  of  the  canon  of  the 
New  Testament  in  the  following  celebrated  passage  : 
"And  here  it  seems  proper  to  give  a  summary  enumera- 
tion of  the  writings  in  the  New  Testament  previously 
mentioned.''  And  here,  among  the  first,  must  be  placed 
the  holy  quaternion  of  the  Gospels,  which  are  followed 
by  the  book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  After  this,  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  are  to  be  reckoned,  and  immediately 
after  these  the  acknowledged  First  Epistle  of  John,  and 
the  Epistle  of  Peter,  which  is  likewise  to  be  received. 
After  these,  if  it  appears  proper,  the  Apocalypse  of  John 
is  to  be  placed,  concerning  which  we  shall  present  the 
current  opinions  in  due  season.  All  these  belong  to 
those  which  are  acknowledged  as  genuine.'' 

"  See  Com.  in  Matt.  Opp.  iii.  p.  441,  Com.  in  Johan,  0pp.  iv.  p.  8, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  ibid.  p.  4  and  5.  See  Munscher,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  §  52 
and  63. 

'  See  Eusebius,  lib.  vii.  c.  25. 

"  See  Vogel,  Com.  de  Canone  Euseb.,  (Erlangen,  1809 — 11,)  pt.  i.  p.  4, 
note  2.  Bertholdt,  p.  120,  note  3.  Hug,  Introduction,  §  20,  p.  78,  sqq.,  Fos- 
dlcli's  translation. 

^  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  25:  Evloyov  8'  bviavdu  yevofidvovg,  lifuxscpoclocKhaaa- 
6ai  lu;  drjluidslaag  ttj;  xuvrri;  diadr^y.rjg  YQccp&g.  Kal  dv  jaxrioy  iy 
TiQihxoig  jj]v  uylav  jwv  EvayyeXlmv  TSTguxvuv  olg  BTiBTat,  fi  jZw  7TO(x^eo>y 
rwp  'AtcootoImv  yQaq)i\-  /usia  ds  Tavxrjv  x&g  Ilavlov  yaialsy.Teov  Iniajol&g' 
uXg  I|tjj  ttjj'  cpSQOiLiefi]v  'Iixiufpov  ngoiiQcxv,  -auI  ouoliog  ti)v  TUtqov  hvqm- 
rioi>   ETTiaTohif  inl  jovroig  Tnxrsot',  fl'ye  q^uvflrj,  jrjv  dcnoxdlvipiv  ^Iwixwov 


76  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORICIN    OF  [^  24. 

"Among  the  books  wliicli  are  disputed,  though  well 
known  to  the  many,  are  that  Epistle  ascribed  to  James, 
and  that  of  Jude,  the  Second  of  Peter,  and  the  Second 
and  Third  of  John,  whether  they  belong  to  the  evangelist 
or  to  some  other  of  the  same  name  with  him. 

"Among  the  spurious  must  be  reckoned  the  book  of 
the  Acts  of  Paul,  that  called  the  Shepherd,  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter,  and  besides  these,  the  Epistle  as- 
cribed to  Barnabas,  the  books  called  the  Institutes  of 
the  twelve  Aposdes,  and  also,  as  I  said  before,  if  it  a])- 
pears  proper,  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  which  some,  as  1 
said,  reject,  but  which  others  class  with  the  acknowl- 

■nsql  \q  tu  d6t.avra  'Auju  xuiijuy  ix6fja6fis6(x'  xnl  tuvtcc  fdi'  iv  ofioloyov- 
fiivotg. 

Twp  (5'  uvTileyo^dpijrr,  yvcDolucDV  (5'  ovi'  ofioK  TOic  noD-olc,  '>)  l.syoiihi} 
'Ia)C(i')8ov,  (pigSTtti,  ^tali)  ' lovSa-  ijre  TUtqov  SevtIqu  iniaToli)  xul  n)  uvoiitt- 
tofiivrj  devriQu  xal  rgln]  'IdiApvov  el'ie  rod  EvaYyEhoTOv  ivyx''^^ovaai, 
Site  y.al  triQov  of^on'ifwv  ixElPi^. 

'Ev  Tolg  rodoig  xttTajETU^Oui  y.ul  T(bf  IIuvlov  7Tqi!c^eciiv  7)  yqucfi],  o,  re 
IsyiuEvog  Tioif-it)!',  xal  -q  UTjox<j}.vi(ng  JJetqov.  Kul  nqbg  iovtoiq  i)  qpf^o- 
jLih'Tj  Baqv6.^a  eniarol-fj,  xal  raf  ' A7Toaj6}MV  ul  Xeyd/nEi'ui  dtSw/uh  erv 
T£,  cb;  ECpyy,  1^  'Icudcvi'ov  (xnoy.ixlvij'i;,  el  (puvElrj,  "iv  tivec,  (hg  ecprjv,  dOr- 
lovaiv,  ETEQOi  8e  iyxQlfovai  joig  vuokoyovfAEi'oig.  "IJ81]  d'  Iv  rovioig  iirig 
xal  TO  xad'  'E^Qalovg  Evayyiliov  xaTelei.uv,  (h  fidliaTU  'E^oukov  ol  luv 
Xqiaibv  7TaqudES.(!cftEi'0t  ;(alooviJt.  Tama  /HEf  nui'ia  TUf  urTdEyoftiioif 
HiP  eiV/.  'Ai'ayxaiixig  dt  xal  iovtmv  of-Wtg  tov  xaTilloyov  TiEnoir^fndu,  Siay.ol- 
ravTEg  tuc  te  yaiu  jj)v  ixxlrjoiuaTiy.^v  rraQdcdoaii'  uXrjdElg  xal  i!c7i).ijiaT0vg 
xal  uvuuoXoyrjiLiivag  yquipug,  xal  idg  (^cAAotj  nagfx  lavjug,  ovx  ii'diu6i\xovg 
fiEf,  uXXdi  xal  dprdEyofiivag,  o/ioig  8k  nagdi  nleiaTOig  iCov  ' Exxltjcnuurixutv 
yivwaxoiiivug'  iv'  fldipai,  e^oifiEv  a^irdg  re  Tairag,  xal  rug  dviuun  rwv 
\47io(n(>}Mi'  irnog  twp  alQEJixwv  TTOorpEQOfjipug'  i^toi  wg  Hhqov,  xul  Qoiiid, 
xal  Maidla,  ^  xal  tivwp  naqix  tovTOvg  &IImp  Eiayysha  nEQie/ovaag-  ^  (hg 
'AvboEOv,  xal  'Iu)6.vvov,  xal  jibp  aXlmv  'AnoaTdlaiP  ^QiiiEig-  wr  oiSep 
oidafiibg  tp  avyyc)(!ciiiiiaTc  jo)p  xaru.  diaSo'/ag  ' Exxhjatacnixwp  Tig  (jcptiQ  eIc 
UP-^iitrjP  dyayelv  i'i^Iwuep.  IldqQa)  ds  nov  xal  6  ttjj  cpgdaEOig  naqu  to 
Tjdog  rb  tknnaioXiy.op  ipaXXdczjEi  xagaxirig'  t]  t£  yvib^ri  xal  ■>)  rwp  ev  adroig 
q)Ego/itipojp  ngoalgecng,  txXeTuiop  oaov  jr^g  dikrjdovg  ogdodo^lag  (xnqdovaa, 
ort  dri  algsTiyMp  dvdgiop  Ctvanlixa^aia  7vy%(xPEi,,  aacpag  naglaii^aiv  oOev 
od  d'  iv  pddoig  airu  xararaxTEOP,  aXV  (hg  (iroTta  it(ji.1'ttj  xul  8vuaE^r\ 
■aaganrjiiop, 


^2L]     THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  COLLECTION.        77 

edged  books.  But  tiiere  are  some  who  place  amono- 
these  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  with  which 
the  Hebrew  Christians  are  especially  pleased.  These, 
then,  are  all  of  the  disputed  books  ;  we,  however,  have 
made  this  catalogue,  necessarily  distinguishing  those 
writings  which,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  church, 
are  true,  and  genuine,  and  acknowledged,  from  those 
others  which  do  not  belong  to  the  New  Testament,  but 
are  disputed,  though  they  are  known  to  most  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical writers, — that  we  might  be  able  to  know 
these  writings  themselves,  and  those  also  adduced  by 
the  heretics  in  the  name  of  the  apostles,  such  as  contain 
the  Gospel  of  Peter,  Thomas,  and  Matthias,  and  others 
beside  them  ;  or  those  which  contain  the  Acts  of  Andrew 
and  John,  and  the  other  apostles,  of  any  one  of  which 
no  one  in  the  series  of  ecclesiastical  teachers  has  ever 
thought  it  worth  while  to  make  mention  in  his  works. 
And,  still  further,  the  style  differs  widely  from  that  of  the 
apostles ;  and  the  opinions  and  doctrines  contained  in 
them,  differing  as  far  as  possible  from  the  true  orthodoxy, 
prove  clearly  that  they  are  the  production  of  heretics. 
Therefore  they  are  not  only  to  be  classed  among  the 
spurious,  but  to  be  rejected,  as  utterly  absurd  and  im- 
pious." 

In  preparing  this  catalogue,  Eusebius  follows  the  tra- 
dition of  the  church,  as  he  tells  us  himself.  By  this 
tradition  of  the  church,  he  does  not  understand  merely 
what  was  current  in  his  church,"  not  merely  the  opin- 
ion prevalent  in  the  Christian  communities,*  nor  the  oral 
tradition,'  nor  merely  the  written  tradition  contained  in 

"  See  Schmidt,  on  the  Canon  of  Eusebius,  in  Henkc's  Magazin,  vol.  v.  p. 
455.     Vogel  also  approaches  this  opinion. 

*  See  Miinscher,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  321,  sq. 

"  See  K.  C.  Flatf,  on  the  Canon  of  Eusebius,  in  Flatfs  Magazin,  vol.  viii. 
p.  79,  sqq. 


78  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  24. 

ecclesiastical  writers,  but  both  the  oral  and  the  written, 
so  far  as  he  could  ascertain  it,  in  the  historical  investiga- 
tions he  made  for  the  sake  of  answering  the  question, 
Which  of  the  writings  that  pretend  to  belong  to  the  New 
Testament  really  do  belong  to  it  ? 

However,  Liicke,  in  his  Inquiry  on  the  Canon  of  Eu- 
sebius,  thinks  he  refers  only  to  the  written  tradition,  and 
cites  the  following  passage  as  proof:"  "  One  Epistle 
of  Peter,  which  is  called  his  First,  is  acknowledged  ;  and 
anciently  the  elders  used  it  in  their  writings  as  undoubt- 
edly genuine.  We  have  not  learned  from  tradition  that 
what  is  called  his  Second  Epistle  belongs  to  the  New 
Testament ;  but,  as  it  appears  useful  to  many,  it  is  eager- 
ly read  with  the  other  Scriptures.  But  concerning  the 
work  called  his  Acts,  and  that  named  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  him,  that  styled  his  Preaching,  and  the  work 
denominated  the  Apocalypse,  we  do  not  know  that  they 
have  been  handed  down  as  catholic  writings.  For  no 
ecclesiastical  writer  of  the  ancients,  or  of  our  times,  has 
ever  made  use  of  testimony  derived  from  them.  But,  in 
the  course  of  this   history,   I  shall   attempt  to  show,  in 

Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  3:  JJhoov  jxhv  olv  imaxoXi]  f-du,  t)  Xeyo^tivr]  avTOv 
nQorioa,  uvixtjAoUyr]Ttti.  Tuviri  Se  xal  ol  n&Xai  ngea^vTEgoi  wj  dvu/iicpi- 
XixT(o  iv  tolg  acpmf  aiiibi'  xajuxixQijVTiu  av/ygufx/Liuar  xr^v  8e  (f£QOj.tivjjv 
uvTOv  devTBoav  ovx  it'Stddijy.oy  jiiai'  Eh'at,  naoeih'^cpafisv  o,«wj  dt  noXlolg 
yj)i\aij.tOi  (purelaa  fAErd.  wv  aXlutv  ianov5('xo6q  -/oucpm'.  T6  ys  fn)f  iwy 
lnrAE.Y.h]fiEvu)f  uiiov  nq(j.^fwv,  xul  to  x«t'  ctirdv  ihi'Ofmufisvov  evuyyiXioi', 
Ti5,  re  Jyfy^fievoy  uvtov  xr'iovy/iin,  y.ul  z^v  xnlovfth'iji'  tcnoxdXvipiv,  ovd' 
l)).ui;  kf  xudohxoTg  i'afiev  TTagadedofiira'  ort  ///j  re  (j.Qxulbiv,  f.f<\  re  iwf 
y.uO'  rifias  Tig  ixxlrjcriudTixog  avyy^acpEvg  inig  i^  ainav  avvBXQii\aaio 
fKtQTVQlaig.  IJQQLOvdTji  Se  irig  laroolag,  ixQOvQyov  noir'iaopni  avv  rmg 
Suido/iug  i7xoai]ur^vaadtti,  rlveg  tui'  xujdi  /oofovg  ExxXijUiaaTixHiv  avy- 
youcfLMi',  OTTntuig  xi/qrjvrub  twj'  d.vii}.Fyofikvi>iv  rbn  t£  ttfqI  rCor  trdta^TJ- 
yuif  xal  uiinloynvfdru)!'  yQaqar,  xal  octm  tteqI  twv  fit]  joiovtcdv  uiroTg 
fl'oTjTai.  \'U.lu  tA  (.ihv  di^o/ia'cdiiei'a  IJeiQOV,  wv  /:dav  fjdvTjV  yvrjalav  Eyi'b)V 
iTficnoli)!',  y.ul  naqd.  znlg  nukanxQea^vifonig  o/joloyoviiEi'ijt',  jocravia.  For 
the  oral  tradition,  romp.  iii.  3,  31. 


§24.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  79 

their  order,  what  disputed  writings  were  used  by  any 
of  the  ecclesiastical  authors,  in  conformity  with  the 
spirit  of  their  time,  and  what  they  have  said  upon  the 
canonical  and  acknowledged  writings,  and  upon  such  as 
were  not  of  that  class.  Such,  then,  are  the  alleged  works 
of  Peter  ;  but  I  know  only  one  Epistle  which  is  genuine 
and  acknowledged  by  the  most  ancient  Fathers." 

In  his  Judgment  upon  the  style  and  contents  of  these 
writers,  Eusebius,  for  the  most  part,  follows  the  earlier 
authorities. 

In  respect  to  their  apostolical  character,  which  was 
made  more  or  less  certain  by  the  traditions  of  the 
church,  he  divides  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
into  three  classes.  Some,  however,  think  he  makes  but 
tiDO  classes  ; "  others,  four ;  while  some  other  writers 
think  there  are  three  classes,  with  two  subdivisions.* 
This  division  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  pas- 
sages :  "  Let  it  be  classed  with  the  spurious  wri- 
tings,   "     "All  these  belong  to  the  disputed  books." 


"  C.  F.  Schmidt,  HisL  crit.  Can.  p.  356.  Bertholdt,  p.  129.  But  these 
two  authors  make  a  different  division. 

*  IFeber,  Beit.  Gesch.  d.-Kanons,  (Tub.  1791,)  p.  142,  sqq.  Miinscher,  1.  c. 
p.  323,  sqq.  J.  E.  C.  Schmidt,  1.  c.  p.  453,  Einleit.  p.  12.  Stroth's  German 
version  of  Eusebius.  Hug,  Introd.  §  20.  Eichhorn,  Einleit.  in  N.  T.  vol.  iv. 
p.  54.  Hdnlein,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  112.  Rossler,  Bibliothek.  d.  Kirchenviitern, 
vol.  iv.  p.  74,  Flatt,  1,  c.  vol.  viii.  p.  28,  very  justly,  takes  a  different 
view.  Liicke,  1.  c.  p.  6.  Vogel,  vol.  ii.  p.  7.  [It  may  be  thouglit  surprising 
that  such  various  opinions  should  prevail  on  this  point.  To  me  it  appears 
Eusebius  makes  four  classes  of  books  in  use  among  the  Christians,  and  pe- 
culiar to  them,  viz.  I.  fVritings  of  undoubted  genuineness  and  value,  [dfiolo- 
yovjUEfa.)  II.  Writings  generally,  hut  not  universally  received,  {ui'TilFyo/tei'n.) 
Both  of  these  are  in  the  present  New  Testament  III.  The  spurious  ivritings, 
(j-o^a,)  which  seem  to  have  been  written  by  good  men,  with  a  good  design, 
and  ascribed  to  some  historical  person,  who  was  not  their  author.  IV.  Ab- 
surd and  impious  writings,  [aionu  nixvirj  xal  dvaas^i].)  His  mixed  writings 
belong  to  the  second  class.  Here,  then,  are  two  classes  of  canonical,  and 
two  of  uncanonical  writings.] 


80  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^24. 

"And  among  them,  he  [Clement]  uses  even  testimony 
from  the  disputed  books, from  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, from  that  of  Barnabas,  and  Clement,  and  Jude." 
"Not  passing  over  the  disputed  writings,  I  mean  the  Epis- 
tle of  Jude,  and  the  other  catholic  Epistles,  that  of  Bar- 
nabas and   the  book   called  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter." 

"  Sacred  writings disputed,  indeed,  but  read  by  ma- 

nv  in  most  of  the  churches Some  utterly  spurious 

and  foreign  to  the  apostolical  orthodoxy."  "  Let  it  be  un- 
derstood that  the  Epistle  of  James  is  spurious."  "  Let 
it  be  understood  that  this  [the  book  of  the  Shepherd] 
is  disputed  by  some,  on  whose  account  it  is  not  placed 
among  the  acknoivledged  books.  But  by  others,  es- 
pecially such  as  need  elementary  instruction,  it  is  judged 
most  necessary ;  for  which  reason,  it  is  now  publicly 
used  in  the  churches,  and  I  have  understood  that  some 
of  the  most  ancient  writers  used  it."" 

I.     The  Acknowledged  Writings. 

The   first  class  comprises  the   writings  of  the  New 
Testament  which  were  universally  acknowledged  as  the 


"  Eusehius,    Hist  Eccl.  iii.  'H^-.'Ev  roi;  roOoig  xaTaierdc/Ooj  xal 

rauTtt  /iih'  navTa  j&f    iLVnXByo[iii'0}v  ehj.    vi.  13:    KixQ^Tc^i'  S'    if  avjolq 

(Klrif/j]g)    xal  raig  uno   tu/'  Ccvjilsyoftii'uv  yQacfZw   (.laqrvqlaig ttj? 

■jiQog  'E^galovg  ^niazolrig ,  rr^g  te  BaQvd^a  y.al  Kl-q/uevTog  y.al  ^loidu.  vi. 
14:  Ml]  t^g  dLVTileyofihag  tiocoeIOwv  rrir  ' lovda  liyot)  xal  Tug  lomdcg  xudoXt- 
x^g  iniaTolicg,  t-^vts  BaqvuBu  y.al  n)r  IJtTQOv  lEyoftsvjjv  drroxci^ui/ztJ'.  iii. 
31 :  'Isgdi.  yodnfi/LiaTa  dcvTiXeydfisya  /idv,  ofioig  d'  iv  nlelaTnig  ixul-qalatg  -nnndi 

TTolloTg  dsdrj/LioaievfiiPu jd  te  navrelwg    voda  y.al  ttjc    d.TiouTohxrig 

ooOodoSlug  dill6TQia.  ii.  23:  'Imlov  &g  vodeverat  ['locxd^ov  iniaTnlrj). 
iii.  3  :  'larinv  (hg  y.al  tovw  (tov  noi/jevog  §i§Uov)  nqbg  fiev  rirCop  dviiW.sx- 
rai,  5t'  ovg  ovx  &v  iv  d/noloyovfiivoig  rEdslij.  'Fqp'  erigaiv  de  dfayxaid- 
Tuiop  olg  [i(!J>.t,ara  Set  UTOixeiOiaecDg  elaayciiyixrig,  xixgnar  odev  tjJt;  xai 
iv  IxxXrjalttig  aixb  dedtj/ijoaisvfiivoi',  xul  tuj'  nalaiox&nov  81  avyyqaifibtv 
xBxqrjfihovg  xiv&g  aim   xaieO.Tjcpa. 


§24.]  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    COLLECTION.  81 

genuine  productions  of  the  apostles."  Here  belong  the 
four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  the 
First  of  John,  and  the  First  of  Peter. 

Respecting  the  Pauline  writings,  he  says,  "  The 
Epistles  of  Paul,  fourteen,  were  known  and  undoubted." 
But  his  judgment  varies  respecting  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  "  It  is  not  right  to  conceal  that  some  reject 
the  Ej)istle  to  the  Hebrews,  saying  it  is  disputed  by 
the  church  of  the  Romans  as  not  being  Paul's.  (See  vi. 
20.  Compare  vi.  13,  and  iii.  38.)  For,  as  Paul  had 
written  a  letter  of  instruction  to  the  Hebrews  in  the 
language  of  their  mother  country,  some  say  that  Luke 
the  evangelist,  others  that  Clement,  translated  that 
writing.  The  latter  appears  the  rather  to  be  true,  inas- 
much as  the  Epistle  of  Clement  and  that  to  the  He- 
brews have  a  similar  style."  From  this  it  appears  that 
Eusebius  actually  ascribes  this  to  Paul.  Vogel  finds 
here  a  reference  to  the  canon  of  Eusebius's  own 
church.* 

"  The  term  acknowledged  {6fioi.oyovfi£vog)  is  to  be  understood  in  reference 
to  the  New  Testament,  (xuiv-^  diu6i\x7j,)  and  so  is  the  term  canonical,  {iv- 
diddrjxog.)  But  he  uses  genuine  (-/vijcrtoc)  in  relation  to  the  authors.  (Com- 
pare iii.  3,  and  vi.  13,  in  the  note  of  this  §,  with  iii.  16.)  One  acknowl- 
edged Epistle  is,  indeed,  ascribed  to  this  Clement,  iii.  38:  "and  the 
Epistle  of  Clement,  which  is,  indeed,  acknowledged  by  all." 

'  iii.  3:  Tov  8e  TTuvlov  71q66tj}.oi,  xai  aacpeXg  al  dsxajicraaQsg.  See  his 
wavenng  judgment  on  the  Epistle  to  Hebrews,  iii,  3:  "Oit,  ys  fii\v  nveg 
rjdeTi\y.aat  Tt^p  nqbg  'E^qalovg,  ngog  ttj^'  'Pcofialwr  ixxXijalag  (bg  /ttj  TlavXov 
ovaav  aizriv  (jcvriXiyeaOui,  (pi^aavTsg,  (see  vi.  20,)  oi  dlxaiov  diyvoelv. 
(Comp.  vi.  13,  vi.  25,  §  23.)  iii.  38 :  'E^gotloig  8i&  Tijg  tiutqIov  yXwmjg 
iyyg(x(po)g  &ftikrjx6Tog  lov  IJavXov,  ol  fiEP  lov  BiayyeXiariiv  Aovxav,  ol  de 
ibv  KXTf^fiEvxa  kqiiEVEvaav  liyovat  ti^v  ygacp-Ziv.  "0  xal  juallov  el'tjp  &p 
dltjd^g,  Tc5  TOV  ofioiop  t^?  (pg&asug  x^Qoi^t^Qoc  ttj'j'  re  tov  Klr^fievTog  inia- 
tol^iP  xttl  T'^v  Tigbg  'E^galovg  &nocr(i)l^£iv.  See  Flatt,  vol.  viii.  p.  88,  sq. 
Vogel,  vol.  i.  p.  19,  sq. 

[See  the  valuable  articles  of  Mr.  Norton  on  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  in  the  Christian  Examiner,  vol.  iv.,  v.,  and  vi.  Stuart's 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Hug's  Introd.  §  144 — 147,  and 
VOL.    I.  11 


82  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  24. 

II.     The  Disputed  and  Spurious  Writings. 

The  second  class  comprised  such  as  were  not  re- 
ceived with  universal  consent  as  genuine  and  apostolical, 
and  admitted  into  the  New  Testament,  but  which  were 
yet  used  and  esteemed  by  many,  and  read  in  the 
churches." 

Among  these  disputed  and  spurious  writings,  the 
Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  the  Second  of  Pete^r,  the 
Second  and  Third  of  John,  held  the  first  place.  This  is 
evident  from  the  term  catholic  Epistles^  which  he  ap- 
plies to  them,  and  from  the  whole  history  of  the  canon, 
though  in  this  also  Vogel  finds  a  reference  to  the  canon 
of  his  own  church  at  Csesarea. 

The  Acts  of  Paul,  the  book  of  the  Shepherd,  the 
Revelation  of  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the 
Doctrines  of  the  Apostles,  appear  to  have  held  the  sec- 
ond rank.  Here  he  does  not  include  the  Epistle  of 
Clement,  as  he  does  vi.  13.  But  this  arises  not  from 
carelessness,  as  Flatt  supposes,  (viii.  90,)  nor  because  it 
was  not  contained  in  the  canon  of  Csesarea,  as  Schmidt 
(p.  455)  and  Vogel  (vol.  i.  p.  22)  suppose,  but,  perhaps, 
because  no  claim  was  made  for  its  reception  into  the 
canon,  ((5^mt?'/j/)j,)  inasmuch  as  no  one  thought  the  apostle 
had  any  share  in  it. 

Eusebius  is  doubtful  to  which  of  the  above  classes  he 


his  notes.  SchoWs  Isagoge  historico-critica  in  libros  N.  T. ;  Jenee,  1830. 
He  maintains  that  Paul  is  not  the  author  of  this  Epistle,  in  which  he  is 
joined  by  most  of  the  eminent  modern  critics  of  Germany.] 

"  Disputed  (di'nA.fyfiuej'oj)  is  opposed  to  canonical  (tt'dittdilyog,)  (see 
iii.  3,)  and  is  equivalent  to  oix  ivdiocdr^tcog :  so  vddog  is  the  opposite  of 
yvrjaiog,  though  v66og  is  equivalent  to  vodevdfiBvog,  and  means  Jmld  not 
to  be  genuine,  but  only  received  by  some.  (Comp.  ii  13,  and  iii.  3.)  To 
this  class  belong  the  writings  knovm  to  many,  [yv^Qifiog  jolg  noXloXg,)  (iii. 
25,)  read  publicly  in  the  churches,  {dedijfxoaievfiivog  iv  ixxXr](Tlaig.)  (ii.  23,  iii. 
3,31.) 


§  25.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  83 

shall  reckon   the  Apocalypse  of  John,  probably  on  ac- 
count of  the  partiality  with  which  he  judged  this  book." 

III.     The  Absurd  and  Impious  Writings. 

This  class  contains  books  forged  by  heretics,  which 
in  no  respect  can  claim  a  place  in  the  New  Testament. 
Irenoeus  (i.  20)  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom,  iii. 
p.  437)  call  them  apocryphal  and  spurious. 


%25. 

USE  AND   CANON   OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT    AMONG    THE 
CHRISTIANS   OF  THE   FIRST   CENTURIES.^ 

The  holy  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  were 
placed  in  the  same  rank  with  those  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  also  were  read.  This  fact  appears  from 
the  writings  of  Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr,  Theophylact, 
Irenseus,  and  others.  The  latter  writes,  "  Since  all  the 
Scriptures,  both  the  Prophets  and  the  Gospels,  are  well 
known."  To  the  same  purpose  Origen  says,  "  Let  not 
any  one  depreciate  the  writings,  which  are  received  and 
believed  to  be  divine,  by  all  the  church  of  God,  who  say 
the  Lavj  of  Moses  was  the  first-born,  and  the  Gospel  the 
first-fruit ;  for  the  perfect  Logos  continued  to  grow  after 
all  the  fruits  of  the  Prophets,  until  the  time  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  "  The  fact  that  the  Logos  wishes  us  to  be 
wise,   may   be   shown   from    the   ancient   and    Jewish 

'  Milnscher,  p.  326.  Matt,  vol.  viii.  p.  92.  Eichkorn,  in  N.  T.,  vol.  ii.  p. 
42J,  sqq.  —  Schmidt  (in  HeiMs  Mag.  1.  c.  p.  456,  sq.)  erroneously  finds  tlie 
cause  in  the  Ceesarean  canon,  to  which  Vogel,  also,  (p.  21,)  supposes  he  re- 
ferred. Eusebius  does  not  decide  upon  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  Flatt, 
1.  c.  p.  96.    Mchadis,  Einleit.  in  N.  T.  vol.  ii.  p.  1033,  sqq. 

*  [See  Appendix,  B.] 


84  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^25. 

ivritings  which  we  use,  and  which  are  believed  by  the 
church  to  be  no  less  divine  than  those  written  after  the 
time  of  Jesus. ^^^ 

But  the  Jewish  Scriptures  could  only  be  read  in  the 
Alexandrian  version ;  and  therefore  all  the  writings 
contained  in  that  version  were  naturally  made  use  of. 
Hence  it  comes  to  pass  that  Christian  writers  frequently 
cite  the  apocryphal  as  if  they  were  canonical  writings. 
For  example,  Irenaeus  says,  "  Jeremiah  the  prophet 
said,"  and  cites  a  passage  -as  Jeremiah's  which  is  found 
only  in  Baruch  iv.  36.  Again,  he  cites  Daniel  the 
prophet,  but  refers  to  the  apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel, 
in  the  Septuagint,  xiv.  4,  5.' 

Clement  of  Alexandria  cites  a  passage  from  Solomon, 
which  is  only  found  in  the  apocryphal  book,  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  xv.  Again  he  writes,  "  The  divine  Scrip- 
ture says,"  referring  to  words  not  found  in  the  canonical 
books,  but  in  Baruch  iii.' 

Tertullian  mentions  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  that  is, 
the  apocryphal  book,  as  if  it  were  canonical.  He  cites 
a  passage  from   Ecclesiasticus,  as  if  the  book  were  a 


"  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Philad.  c.  5,  (§  18.)  Jmtin.  M.  Apol.  i.  c.  67,  (§  19.)  TJte- 
opliil.  ad  Autol.  iii.  12.  Iren.  ii.  27,  2 :  Cum  itaque  universae  Scripturse,  et 
Prophetise,  et  Evangelia  in  aperto  sint,  etc.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1.  iii.  p.  455, 
(§  21 ;)  iv.  p.  475,  (§  22 ;)  v.  p.  561 ;  vi.  p.  659.  TeHull.  De  Prjescript.  c.  36, 
(§22.)  Orlgen,  Com.  in  Joh.  T.  i.  §  4.  0pp.  iv.  p.  4:  Tur  (fFQOfdvLov 
y^ucfibi'  x(xl  iv  ■ni!(.aniQ  kxy.hjalnig  -b^soij  neTTiaTev/jlyoiv  eh'ai  ■&ilu)t'  ovx 
iiv  dfidcQTOi  Tig  Uyoiv  TCQtxnoyivvrifxa  fxkv  rov  Miovaiu)g  vdiiof,  dnaQ;/riv  Se 
TO  eiayyehoy.  JV/erd  ydo  xovg  ndviug  ribv  ngocprjiwy  y.nqnovg,  libv  fdxQi 
Tov  xvglov  'Iijaov,  6  Ttleiog  i^XdaTtjae  loyog.  Cont  Cels.iii.  p.  45.  Opp.  i. 
p.  476 :  "  Oti  ^oiXeuu  ri/iag  Elvai  aocpoig  6  i^6yog,  dsiKxlov  xal  dm)  iwv 
naXaiibp  xal  'Iov8aiitU)v  yquiiu&Twv,  tj  otg  kuI  rifislg  XQ^I^^Q",  ovx  ^ttov 
Jfc  xul  &n6  rwp  f/Erd.  jby  ' Irjoovv  yqucfivioiv  xal  iv  talg  ixxlTjcrluig 
S'eIuv  elvat  nEniareviAh'cuv. 

*  Iren.  v.  35  ;  iv.  5. 

"  Clem.  Alex.  Stromat.  lib.  v.  p.  583.     Ptedag,  ii.  p.  161. 


^  25.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  85 

part  of  the  divine  Scriptures,  introducing  it  with  the 
phrase,  "  It  is  written."     He  speaks  as  follows  on  this 

theme  :  "  I  know  the  book  of  Enoch is  rejected  by 

some  because  it  is  not  admitted  into  the  Jewish  collec- 
tion. I  believe  they  have  supposed  this  book,  written 
before  the  deluge,  could  not  have  survived  that  calamity 
of  the  earth  which  destroyed  all  things.  But  if  this  is 
their  argument,  let  them  remember  that  Noah,  the  great- 
grandson  of  Enoch  himself,  survived  the  deluge.  He 
might  have  heard  it  [the  substance  of  the  book]  as  a 
family  story,  and  hereditary  tradition,  and  have  remem- 
bered what  is  said  about  his  favor  with  God,  and  all  his 
sayings,  if  Enoch  had  done  no  more  than  to  command 
his  son  Methuselah  to  transmit  a  knowledge  thereof  to 
his  posterity.  Noah  may,  without  doubt,  have  followed 
in  transmitting  this  tradition,  in  consequence  of  this 
command,  or  else  because  he  could  not  be  silent  respect- 
ing either  the  kindness  of  God  the  preserver  towards  him, 
or  respecting  the  honor  of  his  own  family.  If  he  could 
not  so  readily  have  received  the  command,  the  other 
cause  would  have  led  him  to  preserve  the  statement  of 
that  book.  And  then,  even  if  the  original  writing  was 
destroyed  by  the  violence  of  the  deluge,  he  could  repro- 
duce it  in  his  mind  ;  as,  after  Jerusalem  was  destroyed 
by  the  Babylonians  in  the  siege,  the  whole  body  of 
Jewish  literature  was  restored  by  Ezra.  But  since 
Enoch  prophesies  of  the  Lord  in  that  same  writing,  we 
are  by  no  means  to  reject  any  thing  that  belongs  to  us. 
And  as  we  read  that  Scripture  good  for  edification  is 
divinely  inspired,  it  seems  for  this  reason  [because  it  pre- 
dicted Jesus]  to  have  been  subsequently  rejected  by  the 
Jews,  as  also  have  some  other  writings  which  speak  of 
Christ.  Nor  is  it  to  be  wondered  at,  that  they  have 
not  received  other  writings  which  speak  of   him ;  for 


86  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [§25. 

they  were  not  willing  to  receive  him,  himself  speak- 
ing openly  among  men.  To  this  it  may  be  added,  that 
Enoch  had  some  value  as  an  evidence  with  the  apos- 
tle Jude.'"* 

As  soon  as  the  learned  turned  their  attention  to  this 
subject,  they  adhered  to  the  tradition  and  decision  of  the 
Jews  in  respect  to  the  apocryphal  writings,  and  thus 
returned  to  the  true  canon. 

This  appears  from  the  writings  of  Eusebius,  who 
says,  "  In  the  selections  made  by  him,  [Melito,  bishop 
of  Sardis,  about  170  A.  C]  the  same  author,  beginning 
in  his  preface,  makes  a  catalogue  of  the  acknowledged 
books  of  the  Old  Testament '  Melito  sends  greet- 
ing to  his  brother  Onesimus.  Since,  in  thy  zeal  for  the 
word,  thou  hast  often  desired  to  have  selections  from  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  concerning  the  Savior  and  the 
whole  of  our  faith,  and  hast  also  wished  to  obtain  an 

"  De  Cultu  Fern.  i.  3 :    Scio  Scripturam  Enoch non  recipi  a  quibus- 

dam,  quia  nee  in  armarium  Judaicum  admittitur.  Opinor,  non  putaverunt, 
illam  ante  cataclysmum  editam,  post  eum  casum  orbis,  omnium  rerum  aboli- 
torem,  salvam  esse  potuisse.  Si  ista  ratio  est,  recordentur,  pronepotem 
ipsius  Enoch  fuisse  superstitem  cataclysmi  Noe,  qui  utique  domestico 
nomine  et  hsereditaria  traditione  audierat  et  meminerat  de  proavi  sui  penea 
Deum  gratia  et  de  omnibus  prsedicatis  ejus  :  cum  Enoch  fiho  suo  Metusake 
nihil  aliud  mandaverit,  quam  ut  notitiam  eorum  posteris  suis  traderet,  Igitur 
sine  dubio  potuit  Noe  in  prsedicationis  delegatione  successisse,  vel  quia  et 
alias  non  tacuisset  tam  de  Dei  conservatoris  sui  dispositione,  quam  de  ipsa 
domus  sujB  gloria.  Hoc  si  non  tam  expedite  haberet,  illud  quoque  assertio- 
nem  Scripturaj  illius  tueretur.  Perinde  potuit  abolefactam  eam  violentia 
cataclysmi  in  spiritu  rursus  reformare,  quemadmodum  et  Hierosolymis 
Babylonia  expugnatione  deletis,  omne  instrumentum  Judaicae  literature  per 
Esdram  constat  restauratum,  Sed  cum  Enoch  eadem  Scriptura  etiam  de 
Domino  prsedicarit,  a  nobis  quidem  nihil  omnino  rejiciendum  est,  quod  per- 
tinet  ad  nos.  Et  legimus  omnem  scripturam  sediiicationi  habilem  divinitus 
inspirari,  a  Judceis  postea  jam  videri  propterea  rejectam,  sicut  et  cffitera  fere, 
quje  Christum  sonant.  Nee  utique  mirum  hoc,  si  Scripturas  aliquas  non 
receperunt  de  eo  locutas,  quera  et  ipaum  coram  loquentem  non  erant  recep- 
turi.  Eo  accedit,  quod  Enoch  apud  Judam  apostolum  testimonium  pos- 
eidet. 


^  25.J  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  87 

exact  statement  of  the  ancient  books,  how  many  they 
were  in  number,  and  w^hat  was  their  arrangement,  —  I 
took  pains  to  effect  this,  understanding  thy  zeal  for  the 
faith,  and  thy  desire  of  knowledge  in  respect  to  the 
word,  and  that,  in  thy  devotion  to  God,  thou  esteemest 
these  things  above  all  others,  striving  after  eternal  salva- 
tion. Therefore,  having  come  to  the  East,  and  arrived  at 
the  place  where  these  things  were  preached  and  done, 
and  having  accurately  acquainted  myself  with  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  I  have  subjoined  and  sent  them  to  thee, 
of  which  the  names  are  these  :  Of  Moses,  five,  —  namely, 
Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuterono- 
my ;  Joshua,  son  of  Nun,  Judges,  Ruth  ;  four  of  Kings, 
two  of  Chronicles ;  a  book  of  Psalms  of  David,  the 
Proverbs  of  Solomon,  and  the  Wisdom,"  Ecclesiastes, 
the  Song  of  Songs,  and  Job ;  —  of  Prophets,  books  of 
Isaiah  and  Jeremiah ;  writings  of  the  twelve  Prophets  in 
one  book ;  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra,  from  which  I  have 
made  selections,  distributing  them  into  six  books.'  "* 


"■  [Others  read,  "which,  also,  is  called  Wisdom."  See  Heinichen^s  note 
on  the  passage,  vol.  i.  p.  404,  of  his  ed.  of  Eusebius  ;  Lips.  1827.  Stevens, 
in  his  edition  of  1544,  reads  i^  crocpla.] 

'  Exisebixts,  Hist  Eccl.  iv.  26:  'Ev  laXs  YQaq)eiaaig  aim  ixkoyatg  d 
airog  (MsXlibjy)  xaTd  to  itgoolfiiov  dL^xofievog  jihv  tfioXoyovfitPtav  trig  nn- 

Icctag  diadTqxTjg  yqucpibv  noieliai  xaz6Xoyov "  MeUtoip  '' OvT)aLf.m  tw 

dfJeAqooi  ^falqeiv.  'ETtsidri  noll&xig  ri^lojaag  anovdrj  ttj  ngog  rbv  X6yov 
XQ^i^jJ-Evog  yeviadav  aov  ExXoyd-g  ex  re  tov  vofiov  xal  rcbv  nQOcprjiibv  rceql 
uoixriqog  xal  n&cri^g  t^s  nlaTSug  r'luwv  sit  ds  xal  f^adsip  T^^f  wv  Ttalaiay 
^iBliiiiv  i^ovXridfjg  dxgl^etuv,  Ttocra  ibv  dcgidfiov  xal  onola  xriv  xd^iv  elev, 
ianoidaaa  rb  toiovto  nqd^ai,  iniUT&fiefdg  aov  to  anovdalov  nsgl  ti^v  nlajiv 
xal  (fikofxadeg  nsql  ibv  Xbyov  ort  xb  (i&Xiaxa  n&vxoiv  nbda  tc5  ngbg  xf^ebv 
ToiJra  nqoxqlveig,  nsgl  ttjj  alaivlov  amxtjglag  dcymvi^bfisvog.  'Aveldihy  ovv 
£lg  x^^v  d.vaToXy\v,  xal  sag  xov  xbnov  yevbfisvog  Evda  ixrjgvxQ^  ^oil  ^^Q'^X^tj, 
xal  ixQi^ag  fiadav  x(t  xr^g  nalaiag  diadifixtjg  ^i^Ua,  inoxd^ag  enefiipd  aov 
S)v  iaxt  T(i  bvbfiKTw  Matvaiuig  nivis'  rivsatg,^'E^odog,  Aevixixbv,  *Agtd- 
(lol,  ^dsvxegovdfiiov  'Iijaovg  TVauTJ,  Kgtxal,  'Poid,  Baadeiav  xiaaaga, 
Ilagalsinofiivcov  dio'    Valfiav  da^ld,  SoXofifbvog  Tlagovftlai,  i^  xal  So- 


88  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  25. 

The  question  now  arises,  Why  were  Nehemiah  and  Es- 
ther omitted  in  the  above  catalogue  ?  [Eichhorn  answers 
the  inquiry,  by  asserting  that  the  books  were  mentioned 
in  the  supposed  order  of  their  composition  ;  that  several 
books  are  referred  to  under  one  title  ;  and  that  Nehe- 
miah and  Esther  are  both  included  under  the  general 
head  of  Ezra."  But,  even  if  we  make  this  gratuitous 
admission,  the  conclusion  does  not  follow  that  Nehemiah 
and  Esther  are  included  in  the  book  of  Ezra  ;  for  though 
Melito  actually  classes  several  books  together,  yet  he 
gives  us  warning  of  the  fact.  Thus  he  mentions  the  four 
books  of  Kings,  and  the  twelve  Prophets  in  one  book. 
Eichhorn  says,  and  truly,  that  it  was  usual  to  unite  Ne- 
hemiah and  Ezra  in  one  book,  as  Josephus  had  done, 
and  then  asks.  Why  should  not  Esther  also  be  included  ? 
But  it  mjght  be  asked,  with  equal  propriety,  Why  should 
not  the  apocryphal  book  of  Ezra,  and  even  of  Esther, 
be  included  ?  It  seems  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
these  books  were  omitted  by  Melito,  because  they  were 
disputed,  or  were  not  found  in  the  canon  most  commonly 
regarded  in  the  "  East."     This  remains  certain,  that  it 

q)lci,  'Exxlt^aiaGT^g,  dcrfia  da/xdiMV,  '/co(9'  IJQOcpi^xwv,  'Haaiov,  'leQSfiiov, 
T(bv  dfhdsxu  iv  novo^l^la,  ^aviril,  ' let^ey.iril,  "Eadqag-  i^  wj'  xul  lug 
ixloy&g  ETioiTjadfiTjv,  eig  e^  ^i^Uct  dislwv." 

[The  translation  of  the  above  passage,  so  faithful  and  beautiful,  is  from 
Palfrey's  Acad.  Lect  vol.  i.  p.  32,  sq.  His  lecture  on  the  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament,  spite  of  its  briefness,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  by  far  the  best  trea- 
tise on  that  subject  in  the  English  tongue  ;  though  I  can  by  no  means  agree 
•with  all  his  conclusions.  See,  who  will,  the  superficial  and  inaccurate  re- 
marks of  Mr.  Home,  1.  c.  chap.  ii.  sect.  1,  on  the  Genuineness,  &c.  of  the 
Old  Testament] 

*  See  Eichhorn,  §  52.  Milnscher,  1.  c.  vol,  i.  p.  267,  sqq.  [John  says, 
"  It  is  remarkable  that  Athanasius,  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  Amphilochius, 
Leontius,  and  both  the  Nicephori,  omit  the  book  of  Esther.  Athanasius 
expressly  places  it  among  those  which  we  call  apocryphal."  Einleit  §  28. 
But  all  these  writers  may  have  followed  Melito.  Home,  as  usual,  passes 
over  the  matter  sicdssimis  pedibm.] 


§  25.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  89 

was  not  easy  for  a  Christian  bishop,  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  century,  to  determine  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament.] " 

Eusebius  gives  us  the  canon  of  Origen,  as  follows  : 
"  In  expounding  the  first  psalm,  he  [Origen]  has  given 
a  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books  in  the  Old  Testament, 
writing  as  follows  :  '  Let  it  not  be  unknown  that  the 
canonical  books,  as  the  Hebrews  transmit  them,  are 
twenty-two  ;  for  such  is  the  number  of  letters  among 
them.'  After  making  some  further  remarks,  he  adds, 
'  These  are  the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Hebrews  :  the 
book  called  Genesis  with  us,  but  among  the  Hebrews, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  book,  Bresith,  which  means 
In  the  Beginning ;  Exodus,  JValmoth,  that  is,  These 
are  the  Names ;  Leviticus,  Waikra,  And  he  called  ; 
Numbers,  Ammesphekodeim ;  Deuteronomy,  Ellah-had- 
deharim,  These  are  the  Words ;  Jesus  the  son  of  Nave, 
Joshua  Ben  Nun ;  Judges,  Ruth,  with  them  united  in 
one  book,  called  Sophetim ;  Kings,  First  and  Second, 
with  them  in  one  called  Samuel,  The  Called  of  God  ; 
the  Third  and  Fourth  of  Kings,  in  one  book,  Wahamme- 
lech  Dabid,  that  is,  The  Kingdom  of  David ;  the  First 
and  Second  of  Chronicles,  in  one  book,  and  called  Dihre 
Haiamim,  that  is.  The  Records  of  Days  ;  the  First  and 
Second  of  Esdras,  in  one  book,  called  Ezra,  that  is,  the 
Assistant;  the  book  of  Psalms,  Sopher  Thillim;  the 
Proverbs  of  Solomon,  Misloth ;  Ecclesiastes,  Koheleth ; 
the  Song  of  Songs,  Sir  Hasirim ;  Esaias,  lesaia ;  Jer- 
emiah, with  the  Lamentations  and  his  Epistle,  in  one 
volume,  Jeremiah ;  Daniel,  Daniel ;  Ezekiel,  leeskell ; 
Job,   Job ;  Esther,    Esther.     Besides   these,  there   are 

»  [See  Palfrey,  1.  c.  p.  35,  sqq.] 
VOL.    I.  12 


90  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  25. 

also  the  Maccabees,  which  are  inscribed  Sarheth  Sar- 
hayieei:  "" 

Valesius,  commenting  on  the  above,  says,  "  In  this 
catalogue  Origen  has  omitted  the  book  of  the  twelve 
minor  Prophets ;  and,  since  this  is  omitted,  we  find  but 
twenty-one  of  the  twenty-two  books  he  had  promised  to 
enumerate.  In  Rufinus's  version,  this  book  of  the  minor 
Prophets  is  enumerated  immediately  after  the  Song  of 
Songs.  Hilary  assents  to  the  same  in  the  Prologue  to 
his  Enarraiio  in  Psahnos.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  is  of  the 
same  opinion ;  but  yet  Hilary,  in  his  commentary  on 
the  Psalms,  agrees  with  Origen,  which  is  not  wonderful, 
since  almost  all  of  the  Prologue  of  Hilary  is  taken  from 
the  commentary  [of  Origen]  on  the  Psalms,  as  Jerome 
testifies." 

Origen  calls  these  books  Canonical  Scriptures.  Other 
books  —  not  comprised  in  our  Apocrypha,  but  heretical 
and    obscure    works  —  he    calls    apocryphal    Scriptures. 

"  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  25:  Tbv  fiiv  roiys  nQmov  i^ijyovusi'og  Wal- 
fiov,  exdeaiv  7ienoli]Tai  ['SlQiyivr/c)  tov  jwp  legaf  yoaqjibv  rrjg  ncxluiac: 
Siadr^xijg  ieuTuXdyov,  wds  nui;  ygdcpoif  xutu  M^iv.  "  Ova  d.yvoi]iiov  (5' 
tlpav  rag  erdiadrinovg  ^l^lovg,  i)g  'E^gmot,  naguSiduaair,  dvo  xul  el'y.oai,, 
oaog  6  dgiO/ubg  iwv  nag'  aiTolg  aTOf/^knv  iaTh'."''  Eha  //erd  Tt/'«  ini- 
(psgsi'  Xiyutv  "  Eial  8s  al  el'xoat  dvo  ^iSlot  xa6'  'E^galovg  aide'  i]  nag' 
■iiixlv  JTei'ecng  iTnyeygu/iijiiEVTj,  nagd  8e  'E^galoig  unb  rrjc  dgx^ig  i?;?  p//5^ou 
Bgr,alO,  onig  iartv  iv  ii.gx'^i'  "E^odog,  OvaXeafibid,  onig  iun  Tuvra  id 
in'b^taia'  AEvninbi',  OvYxgu,  yal  IxuXsasv  \4gid/iol,  '^^////faqnexwJf //«• 
^svTPgovo/iiiov,  "EIXb  dddsSugl/t,  ovioi  ol  Xoyor  'Ir/aovg  vlbg  Navri,  'lo)- 
aovs  (icv  Novv  Kgizal,  'Povd,  Tiag'  aizoXg  iv  hi  I^otcperlff  Buailsi- 
wv  7tg(i)TT],  dEviiga,  nag'  airotg  ev  Safiov^^l.,  6  ■&e6)tlr/rog'  Buailetai' 
rgtTt],  TBiugTi],  iv  hvl  Ova/jfislex  JaSlS,  oneg  iazt  ^aadelu  Ja[lt6' 
naguXemofiivbiv  ngwrop,  demegop,  iv  kvX  ^iBgr\  'A'ia/jlfi,  ontg  tcrrt 
Idyoi,  riuegwi'-  "Eadgag  ngmog  xal  devTsgog,  iv  kvl  'E'Cga,  o  iarv 
^07]66g-  Bi(ilog  Wul^mr,  ^icpsg  QdUfi-  ^olo/JwvTog  Uugoi^lat,  Mwhod- 
'Exxkr](nu(niig,  KiMed-  da/itu  da^idjon',  :^lg  daaigl/n-  'Hautag,  'leaaid- 
'legefdag  avv  ■d-gi'ii'oig  xal  rfj  tnimolri,  h>  krl  'legF/iiia'  Javi^l,  davii^h 
'lelexii^l,  'Iesaxy\l'  '/cbj?,  'la^-  'EaOr^g,  ' Eadr^g.  "E^ta  di  rovmi-  iail 
rd  Maxxa^a'ixd,  uneg  Bntyiygamai  I^agfi-^id  Hag^avl  si." 


5>  25.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  91 

He  calls  the  former  regular  books,  that  is,  such  as  were 
received  in  the  churches,  or  to  be  traced  back  to  the 
Jews ;  the  latter  he  names  also  secret  books." 

[Some  writers  think  Origen  includes  the  books  of 
Maccabees  in  the  above  canon.  But  he  expressly  ex- 
cludes them.*  As  the  list  now  stands,  it  is  true  there 
are  but  twentj-one  books  enumerated.  But  the  omis- 
sion of  the  minor  Prophets  may  be  explained  as  the 
mistake  of  a  transcriber.  This  conjecture  is  strength- 
ened by  the  testimony  of  Rufinus  and  Jerome,  and  still 
more  by  the  fact  that  Origen  included  these  Prophets 
in  the  Hexapla,  wrote  a  commentary  upon  them  in 
twenty-five  volumes,  and  himself  quotes  these  Prophets, 
as  if  he  considered  them  canonical,  and  of  the  same 
authority  with  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.' 
This  he  would  not  have  done,  if  he  assigned  them  no 
place  in  the  canon.  But  even  if  this  omission  could  not 
be  explained,  we  are  not  justified  in  interpreting  his 
words  so  as  to  include  the  books  of  Maccabees  merely 
to  make  up  the  promised  number. 

In  reference  to  this  canon,  it  may  be  asked  why 
Origen  gives  a  place  to  the  book  of  Baruch,  "  the 
Epistle "  of  Jeremiah  ;  for  there  is  no  evidence,  says 
Eichhorn,  to  show  that  it  was  ever  admitted  into  the  Jew- 
ish canon.   But,  in  the  Alexandrine  version,  it  is  appended 


"  [See  his  Prol.  ad  Cant.  Cant.  0pp.  iii.  p.  36,  and  his  Com.  in  Matt.  vol. 
iii.  p.  916.] 

''  ["£'io)  8e  lovntv  IotI  la  MuxxuSaixu,  xtX.  See  Miinscher,\.  c.yo\.  i. 
p.  248.     But  see  Fal/rey,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  35,  sq.] 

"  [The  fact  that  they  were  included  in  the  Hexapla  alone,  does  not  prove 
he  esteemed  them  canonical,  if  it  be  true,  as  Bahrdt  maintains,  (Originis 
Hexapl.  quae  supersunt,  vol.  i.  p.  168,)  that  it  contained  likewise  the  apocry- 
phal books.  His  twenty-five  volumes  of  commentaries  on  these  Prophets 
were  extant  in  the  time  of  Eusebius.  See  Cave,  Historia  literaria,  &c. 
(Lond.  1688,)  vol.  i.  p.  80.] 


92  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [§25. 

to  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah.  In  this  instance,  it 
seems,  Origen  followed  that  authority.  Miinscher  sup- 
poses he  followed  the  advice  of  some  partial  Jew.  But, 
from  the  expression  of  Origen,  it  would  appear  that  he 
included  only  the  pretended  letter  of  Jeremiah,  which  is 
but  a  part  of  the  present  apocryphal  book  of  Baruch. 
He  may  have  had  private  reasons  for  supposing  it  the 
genuine  work  of  the  prophet.]" 

Although  Origen  excludes  the  apocryphal  writings 
from  the  canon,  yet  he  did  not  abandon  the  use  of  them, 
as  it  appears  from  several  passages  of  his  writings. 

Thus  he  quotes  the  Maccabees :  "  We  think  this  is 
so,  on  the  authority  of  Scripture ;  for  I  have  heard,  also, 
in  the  book  of  Maccabees.^^  * 

Of  the  Story  of  Susannah  and  the  Apocrypha  in  gen- 
eral, he  says,  writing  to  Julius  Africanus,  "  If  these 
things  do  not  deceive  me,  it  is  now  time  to  lay  aside 
those  copies  received  in  the  churches ;  to  impose  rules 
upon  the  brotherhood,  and  reject  these  sacred  books  ad- 
mitted by  them  ;  time,  indeed,  to  flatter  the  Jews,  and 
persuade  them  to  give  us,  instead  of  these,  genuine 
writings,  free  from  all  that  is  fictitious !  For  now  has 
not  that  Providence,  —  which  in  the  holy  Scriptures 
gives  edification  to  all  the  churches  of  Christ,  —  has  not 
he  despised  those  who  are  bought  with  a  price,  for 
whom  Christ  died?"'' 

"  [See  Miinscher,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  249.  Eichhorn,  §  54.  Bertholdt,  vol.  i.  p. 
93,  sqq.] 

''  Origen,  De  Princip.  ii.  1.  0pp.  i.  p,  79 ;  Ut  ex  Scripturarum  auctori- 
tate  hoc  ita  se  habere  credamus,  audi  quoq^ue  in  Maccabeeorum  libris. 

"  Opp.  i.  p.  IG :  "  Oga  lolwr,  fl  fn)  Xavd6.vEi,  -fif-mg  tu  loiavm, 
icdeitli'  T(i  iy  Tfui;  ixxhjolaig  (pEo6iLisvn  uvTlygacpa,  x(tl  vofiodsTriaui  rrj 
dcdE}.q)6rr]Ti,  linodiodat  fiev  xds  ttuq'  aixoTg  inixpeQOfiiras  IsQ&g  (ill'i'kov;, 
ieoXaxeieif  St  ' lovdalovg  xal  neldeiv,  iVa  fieTuduxriP  t'lfuf  twp  xadaoioi' 
K«i    jLirjdav  nh'xofta    ixovTun'.     ".4ga  Se  xal  i^  nQui'oi.u  iv  dylaig  yQcttpulg 


^  25.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  93 

"  But,  in  addition  to  these  things,  consider  if  it  is  not 
well  to  remember  [that  saying  of  Scripture,]  '  Thou 
shalt   not   remove    the    ancient   landmarks,    which  thy 

fathers  have  set  up.' Therefore,  it  seems  to  me, 

nothing  could  have  been  more  convenient,  than  for  those 
who  are  called  wise  men,  rulers,  and  elders  of  the 
people,  to  remove  [from  the  canon]  all  such  things  as 
misht  furnish  an  accusation  ajrainst  themselves  before 
the  people.     It  would  not  be  surprising,  therefore,  if  this 

Story  of  Susannah  contained  some  truth and  if 

they  [the  Jewish  elders]  had  pirated  and  stolen  it  away 
from  the  Scriptures."" 

"  The  Hebrews  do  not  use  the  book  of  Tobit,  nor 
that  of  Judith.  Neither  do  they  have  in  Hebrew  those 
others  which  are  in  our  apocryphal  books,  as  we  have 
learned  from  them.  But  since  the  churches  use  To- 
bit,"  &c.* 

[Origen  cites  also  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus  as  genu- 
ine   Scripture.       "Accordingly    the  divine    logos   says, 

dedbjxvia  n&aatg  Tulg  Xgiaiov  ixxXrjcriaig  olyodo/nin',  ovx  icpgoftiae  tuj' 
ji/uri;  dyogaadivTCOv ,  inig  &)>  XgiOTog  untdnvEV. 

[I  have  not  followed  the  text  of  Origen,  given  by  De  Wette,  but  the  pe- 
culiar reading  of  the  Codex  Regius,  as  represented  in  De  la  Rue's  edition. 
Some  others  read,  in  the  first  line,  o^«  toIwv.  I  have  translated  as  if  it  was 
(Sou  Toti'vv,  &c.  Of  course,  Origen  speaks  ironically,  as  it  is  evident  from 
the  next  sentence,  and  from  the  whole  epistle,  in  which  he  rebukes  and 
laughs  at  his  friend  Africanus.] 

"   IJgog  jttVTu    8e    ay.6nBi,  el    fi-f]  xalup  /ne/iivriaOui  tov-    ov  ^lETudr^aetg 

iigiu  nkovLu,  a.  eaujaav  ol  ngdregol  aov 8ib  ovSsv  oljuat  aXXo  olxo- 

vo^eladai,  ^  jovg  vo^it,onEi>ovg  aocpovg  xul  agxovjag  xal  TigEoBviioovg 
TOV  luov  vtte^eXeIv  rCc  TOiavia,  ooa  nEQiel^Ev  nvT<hv  y.uTTjyoglur  nagic 
T(5  }.a(^ ......  ovSkv  ovf  ■d'avfiaaibv    eI    6k  iD.rfiri    Tvy/di'ovGEiv    ti]»'    nsgl 

^b)a6LVVttv laroglur.  '  Ov E^ixXEipap  x)-'  xiq)ElXov  d/ro  libv  ygacpwv. 

p.  16—22. 

'   Origen,  Op.  i.  p.  26 : 'E^galoi  tw  Tw^Lcl  ov  xgwprai,  ovde  jfj  'lov- 

S'^d'  oi8h  yag  Exovaiv  aiT&  xal  tv  d.noxgv(poig  'E^ga'iail'  &g  (xn'  uvtwv 
fiaOdvTEg  lyi'(hxnfiEV'  dA^'  insl  xg^^Tai  tS    To)Sla.  al  ^xxlrjalai,  xtX. 


94  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^26. 

'  What  seed  is  honorable  ?  The  seed  of  man.  What 
seed  is  dishonorable?  The  seed  of  man."  Here  the 
quotation  is  from  Ecclus.  x.  19,  sqq/  His  opinion  on 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  is  fluctuating.*  He  speaks  of 
it  as  attributed  to  Solomon,  yet  not  received  by  all. 

Now,  after  weighing  these  testimonies,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  most  celebrated  teachers  of  the  second 
and  third  centuries  made  frequent  and  public  use  of  the 
writings  which  we  commonly  call  apocryphal ;  that  they 
pronounce  them  inspired  and  divine,  quote  them  as  au- 
thorities, and  regard  them  with  the  same  esteem  as  the 
canonical  writings.  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  of 
Sirach,  the  books  of  Maccabees,  Tobit,  and  Judith,  are 
most  frequently  appealed  to.] " 

§26. 

CANON   OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH,  IN  THE  FOURTH  CENTURY. 

We  have,  still  extant,  several  catalogues  of  the  books 
in  the  Bible  of  the  Greek  church,  written  during  the 
fourth  century.  For  these  we  are  indebted  to  the  anxi- 
ety of  the  orthodox  to  prevent  the  reading  of  the  apoc- 
ryphal books.  The  following  are  some  of  the  most 
remarkable  :  — 

I.     Canon  of  the  Council  of  Laodic^a, 
This  council  was  held  between  360  and  369  A.  C,  and 
its  decision  upon  the  books  of  the  canon  is  as  follows  :  — 

[flnjal  yovv  xal  6  '&eiog  Myog'  aniqfitt  'dvTifioP  nolov ;  antqita  d.v-. 
Ooilmov,  xjl.     Cont.  Celsum,  viii.  Opp.  i.  p.  778.] 

''  [The  late  Dr.  Mayheiv  pertinently  asks,  "  Why  was  the  Wisdom  of  Sol- 
omon excluded,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  admitted  ?  "  ] 

'  See  Prolog,  ad  Cant.  Cant.  Oop.  iii.  p.  29. 


^  26.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  95 

Canon  59.  "  That  private  psalms  ought  not  to  be 
read  [or  repeated]  in  the  church  ;  nor  the  uucanonical 
books,  but  only  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  and  Old 
Testament." 

Canon  60.  "  These  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  to  be  read  :  — 

1.  The    Genesis   of  the       13.  A  book  of  150  Psalms  ; 

World  ;  14.  Proverbs  of  Solomon  ; 

2.  Exodus  ;  15.  Ecclesiastes  ; 

3.  Leviticus  ;  16.  Song  of  Songs  ; 

4.  Numbers  ;  17.  Job  ; 

5.  Deuteronomy;  18.  Twelve  Prophets; 

6.  Joshua;  19.  Isaiah; 

7.  Judges  and  Ruth ;  20.  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  La- 

8.  Esther  ;  mentations,  and  Epis- 

9.  Kings,  1st  and  2d  ;  tie  ;" 

10.  Kings,  3d  and  4th;  21.  Ezekiel ; 

1 1 .  Chronicles,  1  st  and  2d ;     22.  Daniel. 

12.  Ezra,  1st  and  2d; 

"  These  are  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  :  — 

Four  Gospels^  namely, 
According  to  Matthew  ;         According  to  Luke  ; 
"  "  Mark;  »         "  John. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
Seven  Catholic  Epistles,  namely. 
One  of  James ;  two  of  Peter;  three  of  John ;  one  of  Jude. 

Fourteen  Epistles,  namely. 
To  the  Romans,  one  ;  To  the  Ephesians,  one  ; 

"    "    Corinthians,  two  ;       "    "    Philippians.  one  ; 
"    "    Galatians,  one  ;  "    "    Colossians,  one  ; 

"  [Here  are  tico  apocryphal  books  declared  canonical.] 


96  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^26. 

To  the  Thessalonians,  two ;     To  Titus,  one  ; 
"    "    Hebrews,  one  ;  "    Philemon,  one."" 

"    Timothy,  two ; 

II.     The  Apostolical  Canon.* 

The  eighty-fifth  canon  says,  "  Let  these  books  be 
revered  and  holy  among  you  all,  the  clergy  and  laity. 
Of  the  Old  Testament, 

Five  books  of  Moses  ;  One  of  Ezra  ; 
One  of  Jesus  the  Son  of      One  of  Esther ; 

Nave  ;  One  of  Judith  ;  ^ 

One  of  the  Judges  ;  Three  of  Maccabees  ; 

One  of  Ruth  ;  One  of  Job  ; 

Four  of  Kings  ;  One  Psalter ; 

Two  of  Chronicles  ;  Three  of  Solomon  ; 


"  jlfajm", Consiliorum  nov.  et  ampliss.  Coll ectio,  vol.  ii.  p.  574  :  "On  ov  del 
tdio)Tixovg  ipaXfiovs  f-SYsaOai  iv  rrj  ixxXijala,  ovde  dxavdviara  ^i^Xlu, 
dXkdi.  fiova  xd  xavovixdc  Trig  xuivTJg  xal  nuXaiag  SiaOrixrjg,  Can.  60:  Oaa  del 
^i^lia  &vayiv(haxBadai  jr^g  nalaidcg  diadr^'itr^g-  &.  riveaig  x6a/uov  j5'.  "ESo- 
dog  tl  AlyvTirov  y' .  Aevnixdv  d'.  'Aqi6/hoL'  i.  ^evTegordfiiov  ai.  ' Irjoovg 
Navr^'  ^'.  Kgnal,  'Povd'  •>].  ^ EoBr^Q'  &'.  Bauileiwi'  dr.,  |5'*  /.  Baaileiibi' 
y,  8'-  id.  JJuQalemSjueva  d,  (?'•  i^.  "Eadgag  &,  j^'*  r/.  ^iB^og  ipuX- 
fiav  QV'  id'.  Uocgoi/idtti.  ^olojuwPTog-  li.  ' ExxlrjaiaarriC'  lai'.  'Aajua 
qcTfi&TOiv  li^.  '  IfbS'  iTj.  ^ddextt  7TQ0(py\Tai'  iff.  'Haatag'  x  .  'Isgefilag, 
Baqovx,  S-grivoi  xul  ini(noXai'  xd.  'Is'Qexi^X'  x^' .  Actvir^.  Tdc  da  rrig 
Xttiprig  diadrixijgjavTDc-  Evocyyeha  zitjaaQu,  xwrd  Ward.,  x.  3I(xqx.,  x.Aovx., 
xaid  ' loi&v  nqdi^Eig  ' Anoaidliov  ' EniajoXul  xadolixal  tmci,  ovtwq'  'la- 
xih^ov  /jla,  UiTQOv  diio,  'liodrvov  TQelg,  'lovda  fxiw  ' Eni(noXal  dExmicrau- 
Qsg,  oviwg-  nQog  'Pw/u.  ftlu,  nqog  Koq.  dvo,  ngug  Fal.  /ula,  nqhg  'E(pea,  f/Lu, 
ngbg  <IhX.  jula,  tt^o?  Kol.  /ula,  Trqdg  Qeaa.  dvo,  ngdg  'ESq.  /ula,  ngog  Tt/i6d. 
8vo,  ngog  TIt.  /da,  nghg  IjiIVi/i.  /da.  See  Spittler's  doubts  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  this  canon  in  his  Kritisch.  Untersuch.  d.  60,  Laodic.  Kanons ;  Bremen, 
1777,  8vo.  See  them  examined  and  shown  not  to  be  decisive,  in  Stud,  und 
Krit.  for  1830,  p.  591,  sqq.  [See  Daille,  On  the  right  Use  of  the  Fathers, 
&c. ;  Lond.  1841,  p.  44,  sqq.] 

*  [Its  date  is  uncertain.  See  Lardner,  vol.  iv.  p.  230,  sqq.,  and  the  au- 
thorities he  cites.] 

'  This  book  is  omitted  in  many  MSS. 


§26.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  97 

One  of  the  twelve  Prophets ;  Ezckiel,  one  ; 

Isaiah,  one  ;  Daniel,  one. 

Jeremiah,  one  ; 
Besides,  let  it  be  commanded  jou  to  teach  your  children 
the  Wisdom  of  the  learned  Sirach. 

Our  books  of  the  New  Testament  are, 
Four  Gospels  ;  One  Epistle  of  James  ; 

Fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul ;       One  of  Jude 
Two  of  Peter  ;  Two  of  Clement ; 

Three  of  John  ; 
And  the  directions  from  me  Clement,  to  you  bishops, 
delivered  in  eight  books,  (which  are  not  to  be  read  pub- 
licly before  all,  on  account  of  the  mysteries  in   them,) 
and  the  Acts  of  us  the  Apostles."" 

III.    Cyril's  Canon. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  [about  348  A.  C]  thus  writes  : 
"  Learn  diligently  from  the  church  what  are  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  what  of  the  New,  but  read 
me  none  of  the  apocryphal.  For  if  you  do  not  know 
the    books   acknowledged  .  by  all,   why  do  you  vainly 

"^  Mansi,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  47,  and  Patrum  Apostolicorum  Opera,  ed.  Colele- 
rius,  vol.  i.  p.  448 :  ^'Emoi  naavv  vuXv  xli^gtycolg  xul  Xa'ixolg  ^t^lla  ae^iofiia 

xal  (lyioc,  rr^g  fiEi' naXuiag  SiadrjXrjg  MwaicDg  TTSPTe ' hiaov  vlov  Navr\ 

'iv,  j(bv  Kguaf  ^v,  ttj?  'Poid  'iv,  Baa.  jiaaaQa,  fTugaXeinofiivwi'  jov 
^i^Xiov  Tbiv  ■fj/nsQOsi'  dvo,  "EaSgu  dvo,  ' Ead^q  ev,  'lovdsld  er  (wanting  in 
many  MSS.)  Ma/a^UixCii'  rglu,   'ICo^  ef,  Walirigiov  'ip,  Uolofiavxog  rgla 

flgoq^i^Tbjf  Sexadvo  'if,  "^Haaiug  ev,  'Isge/u.  ^v,  '7c^.  'if,  dav.  'if.  "E^- 

m6sv  de  TtgouKnogsladoi  ifily,  fiavOdcveiv  ijuQp  Tovg  viovg  ttjj'  aocplav  tov 
7io\v(iadovg  Ueigixx.  '^H/niiega  ds,  i.  £.,  ttjj  xaivr^g  Siudr^xi^g-  Evayy.  jicr- 

aaga ,  UaiXov  iniawXal  dexmiaaagsg,    ITaTgov    in.  Svo,  'Icjdvvov 

Tgelg,  'laxa^ov  juia,  'lovda  fda,  KX-i^fisvrog  imawlal  dio  xal  al  diarayai 
ifixp  Tolg  imax6noig  dv'    ifiov   KXt^^evtoq  iv  (ixTO)  ^i^Uoig  ngocrnefpmvTj- 
(lipai  [ag  oil  8bZ  drjfioaievBiv  inl  n&vjiav,  di&    rd   iv  aijalg  fivaiixd.)  xal 
al  ng&^stg  r^fiw  twp  \4noar6Xb)v. 
VOL.    I.  13 


98  HISTORY    OF    THE    OtUGIlN    OF  [^26. 

trouble  yourself  about  the  disputed  books  ?  Read,  then, 
the  divine  Scriptures,  the  twentj-two  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  have  been  translated  by  the 
seventy-two    interpreters.     Of   the  Law,  the  first    are 

the  five  books  of  Moses  ; then  Jesus  the  Son  of 

Nave  ;  and  the  book  of  Judges,  with  Ruth,  which  is 
numbered  the  seventh ;  then  follow  other  historical 
books,  the  First  and  Second  of  the  Kingdoms,  (one  book, 
according  to  the  Hebrew;)  the  Third  and  Fourth  are  also 
one  book.  The  First  and  Second  of  the  Chronicles  are 
in  like  manner  reckoned  as  one  book  by  them.  The 
First  and  Second  of  Ezra  are  counted  as  one  book.  The 
twelfth  is  Esther.  These  are  the  historical  books. 
The  books  written  in  verse  are  five  ;  Job,  and  the  book 
of  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  the  Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song 
of  Songs,  making  the  seventeenth  book.  After  these 
are  the  five  prophetical  books,  one  of  the  twelve 
Prophets,  one  of  Isaiah,  one  of  Jeremiah,  with  Baruch 
and  Lamentations,  and  an  Epistle  ;  then  Ezekiel,  and 
the  book  of  Daniel,  the  twenty-second  book  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

"  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  the  four  Gos- 
})els ;  the  rest  [that  is,  the  other  Gospels]  are  apocryphal 
[or  falsely  inscribed]  and  hurtful.  The  Manicheans 
wrote  the  Gospel  according  to  Thomas,  which,  as  the 
sweet  savor  of  the  evangelical  name,  destroys  the  souls 
of  the  impure.  Receive,  likewise,  the  Acts  of  the 
twelve  Aposdes ;  as  also  the  seven  catholic  Episdes,  of 
James  and  Peter,  John  and  Jude,  and  the  seal  of  all, 
and  the  last  work  of  the  apostles,  the  fourteen  Epistles 
of  Paul.  Let  all  the  others,  besides,  be  held  in  the 
second  rank."" 

"  Cyril,  Hierosol.  Cateches.  iv.  33—36,  pp.  67—69,  ed.  Tuttei :   rpdo 


§26.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  99 

IV.    Canon  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzen. 

He  gives  the  following  canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
about  370  A.  C.:  — 

["  Meditate  and  discourse  much  on  the  word  of  God. 
But  as  there  are  many  falsely  ascribed  writings,  tending 
to  deceive,  accept,  my  friend,  this  certain  number. 
There  are  twelve  historical  books  of  the  most  ancient  He- 
brew wisdom Then  the  five  books  in  verse 

The  prophetic  books,  five ;  the  twelve  Prophets  are  one 

book "     Under  these  heads  he  enumerates  all  of 

the  present  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  except 
Esther  and  the  Lamentations.  Nehemiah  is  probablv 
included  in  Esdras,  though  he  mentions  but  one  book.]'' 

6)]xrjg  ^l3f.ot,  nOLUi,  8e  tTj;  y.uift];,  •Aid  fiov  /nijdev  TWf  unoXQixpaiv  (/»'«- 
yl>'(j)axs.  '0  juo  tu  Traod  naaw  uiioloyouueva  firi  slSib;,  tL  ttsoI  tu 
ull(plSu).}.6fle^'u  TulumioosTg  fiiinp' ;  ' Ai'u-yii'ujay.e  T(i;  i)-elug  yoacpu;,  rug 
el'y.ocrt'  dvo  (^iSXovg  ttj.-  ■naluiug  8iud)\x)]z,    lUg    irrb    tw*'  i^8oin\xofTa  dvo 

Iq^ij]vevtCov    tQHtjVEvdelauz Tov  v6f.iov    fih'    ydo    elaiv    ul   MuKjioig 

TTOurai  TrivjB  ^l^loi iirjc  de,    'Irjaovg  vldg  iVwurj,  xixl    tu/'  KqitC)!' 

(.lEja  Trjj  'Povd  ^i^llov  E[3Sofiof  uotdfiovfiEPOt',  Tu»'  ds  loiTJOn'  lUIOOlXUif 
^i3Ub)v,  nQonrj  xal  dEvtiou  loi*'  BuaiXEtCyv  {.dix  naq''  'ESouloig  iail  ^l3i.og' 
fttu  dt  xal  -^  tqIti]  xul  r^  Tfr(ior?/'  o/iwlitig  dt.  nao'  uviolg  y.ul  jGii'  TJaou- 
).ti7T0uivix)v  ■))  TTQmij  y.ul  i^  dEvriua  /ulu  Tvy^dcrEi,  ^iSlog,  nul  jov  "Eodou 
■>)  ngwTij  y.ul  7)  dEVTEQU  /ulu  XEhuyiaiui'  dwdExdrrj  ^l8kog  t/  ' FmQ^^o.  Kul 
7(i  /lEP  laiOQixdc  TuvTu.  Tu  St  OTOi^Tjodi  jvy/dvEi.  Tih'TE'  '/(j)(?,  xul  ^itiXog 
Wuljiiiiv,  xul  UuQOifjiui,  xul  ' Ey.xXrifnaaTTig,  xal  dauu  ua/udnjp,  iniuxut- 
dixuTOV  ^iSXlof.  'Enl  dE  jouTOig  tu  7TQ0(p>jtix&  nivrt'  jC)v  ^ojJfxu  Txuoquj- 
Tc5i'  filu  ^l^log,  xul  ' Hauiov  filu,  xul  ' Ieqeiiiov  [ietu  Buqov/  xul  t^o^J/'oj*' 
xal^  BTTKTToXrig'  bItu  'IeXexlt^I-  xal  1^  lov  dufir^l  ElxoaiijdEVTEOU  ^iSlog  i^g 
Txal.  diaO.  Tr^g  8b  xaii'Tig  8iud.,  tu  TEcrauga  BvayyeUu-  Kjc  8e  loinu 
yjEv8EnlyQU(pa  xal  ^Iu^equ.  rvy/dciEi.  Eygutf/av  xal  Mctvi/alot,  xuiu 
Ocouup  BvayyiXiov,  otieq  loCTtEQ  buuiSIcc  t»jc  EvayyBhxrig  Tiooaoivoulag  81- 
acpdElQEi  7ug  yw/ccg  t(oi'  unlovaiigoii'.  zJe;(Ov  8e  xul  j(xg  no<j.^Big  jo)y 
8iI)8exu  ' ATioaTolun"  Tzgog  jovjoig  Se  xul  i&g  etttu  ' luxfh^iov  xul  TIetoqv, 
' lu/xi'vov  xul  'Iov8a  xudolixug  ETiiaToXdig.  ' ETCiatpg6.yiaua  8e  jmp  Tidci'iot)' 
xul  ftuOrjiaf  TO  TElEviutot',  rug  IJuvXov  dExuiiaaagag  E7naioX<j.g.  Tu  8h 
lomii.  ndvja  iSio  xelado)  iv  SEVTEoa.  [See  Lardner,  vol.  iv.  p.  171,  sqq., 
and  p.  430.] 

[See  Lardner,  vol.  iv.  p.  285,  sqq.,  from  whom  I  have  taken  this  cata- 
logue.] 


100  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^26. 

He  elsewhere  adds,  in  his  statement  respecting  these 

books,  "  Jeremiah,  both  sympathetic  and  mystic 

to  these  some  add  Esther."" 

His  canon  of  the  New  Testament. 
[He  enumerates  all  the  canonical  books,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Apocalypse.]      "  Some  say  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  spurious,  but  they  do  not  say  wisely  ; 

for  grace  is  genuine Some  say  there  are  seven  of 

the  catholic  Epistles  ;  others  that  only  three  ought  to  be 
used.  Again,  some  receive  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  but 
the  greater  part  say  it  is  spurious.  This  is  the  true 
canon  of  the  God-inspired  writings."* 

V.    Canon  of  Athanasius. 

He  died  about  373  A.  C,  and  writes  as  follows  in  his 
festal  Epistle  :  "  For  I  fear  lest  some  few  of  the  weaker 
sort  should  be  seduced  from  their  simplicity  and  purity, 
by  the  cunning  of  some  men,  and  at  last  be  led  to  make 
use  of  other  books  called  apocryphal,  being  deceived 
through  the  similarity  of  their  names,  which  are  like 
those  of  the  true  books.  I  therefore  entreat  you  to 
forbear,  if  I  write  to  remind  you  of  what  you  already 
know,  because  it  is  necessary  and  profitable  to  the 
church.  Now,  while  I  am  about  to  remind  you  of  these 
things,  to  excuse  my  undertaking,  I  will  make  use  of  the 
example  (or  type)  of  Luke  the  evangelist,  saying,  also. 


Gregorius,  Nazianz.  Carm.  xxxiii.  0pp.  ii.  p.  98,  ed.  Colon.  Jambi  ad 

Seleucum,  p.  194,  sqq.:  'leQSfdap  re  avfinudrj  y.al  fivcniy.di' rovTOig 

nQoaeyxQli'ovai.  Ty)v  'Eadi]Q  jivig. 

''    Tivi;  8i  (fctai,  ttjv  tt^oc  'EBquIovq  I'dOop,  ovx  el  UyoviEC,  yvrjalu  yuo 

i)  xdiQig KadoXiitm'    iniOToXai'    riveg    fiev    lnj6i  tpamv,   ol  8s  TQelg 

fi6vag  XQr\vui  dix^oOat, Ti^v  8'   ('inoxulviinv  t^v  ' I(i)6lvvov  tKjlIiv  nvhg 

(ihv  iyZQlvQvaiv,  ol  nUlovg  8i  ye  r66ov  liyovoiv.      Omog   dipevSiaruTog 
i(avi})v  df  fhj  Tbiv  ■0-EQ7iyev(TTti)f  yuitcfuw. 


^26.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  101 

myself,  '  Forasmuch  as  some  have  taken  in  hand  to  set 
forth  writings  called  apocryphal,  and  to  unite  them  with 
the  God-inspired  Scripture  in  which  we  have  full  con- 
fidence, as  they  who,  from  the  very  first,  were  eye-wit- 
nesses and  ministers  of  the  word,  delivered  them  to  the 
Fathers,  it  has  seemed  good  to  me,  after  consulting 
with  the  true  brethren,  and  inquiring  from  the  begin- 
ning, to  set  forth  those  books  which  are  canonical, 
which  have  been  handed  down  to  us,  and  are  believed  to 
be  divine,  so  that  every  one  who  has  been  deceived 
may  condemn  his  deceivers,  and  that  he  who  remains 
pure  may  rejoice  when  again  put  in  remembrance  of 
these.' 

"  All  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  two-and- 
tvvent}^  in  number  ;  for,  as  I  have  heard,  that  is  the  order 
and  number  of  the  Hebrew  letters.  To  name  them, 
they  are  as  follows."  [His  catalogue  agrees  with  Cyril's, 
except  that  Ruth  is  mentioned  particularly  by  Athana- 
sius  ;  Esther  is  omitted,  and  is  first  mentioned  among  the 
books  to  read  in  private.]  Thus  far  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament. 

"  These  belong  to  the  New  Testament. 

[His  catalogue  agrees  with  that  of  Cyril ;]  and  again 
the  Apocalypse  of  John.     These  are  the  fountains  of 

salvation, in  these  alone  is  the  doctrine  of  piety 

taught. 

"  For  the  sake  of  greater  accuracy,  I  will  add,  —  and 
the  addition  is  necessary,  —  that  there  are  also  other 
books,  beside  these,  not  indeed  admitted  to  the  canon, 
but  ordained  by  the  Fathers  to  be  read  by  such  as  have 
recently  come  over  [to  Christianity,]  and  who  wish  to 
receive  instruction  in  the  doctrine  of  piety  —  the  Wis- 
dom of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  and  Esther,  and 


102  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  26. 

Judith,  and  Tobit,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Apostle,  as  it  is 
called,  and  the  Shepherd ;  so  that,  the  former  being 
canonical,  and  the  latter  read,  there  is  no  mention  of 
apocryphal  books,  but  they  are  the  invention  of  heretics, 
who  wrote  these  things  after  their  own  pleasure,  and 
assigned  and  added  to  them  dates,  that,  producing  them 
as  ancient  writings,  they  may  find  occasion  to  deceive 
the  simple  therewith."" 

"  Mlianasius,  Epistola  festalis,  Opp.  i,  p.  9G1,  ed.  Bened. :    'ETrsidi] 

qoSovuni,  ^i]  nag  dUyot'  toji'  (jcxegalojv  dnd  t^c  UTil6T)]iog  xul  iTjg  (j.ypo- 
rijTOg  7i}.av)j6waiv  (xnb  j^ig  nuvovQylug  jivwv  d.v6q(hn(x)v,  xul  Xoinuv  ^v- 
Tvy/uvEif  tTk^oig  do^Mi'Tui,  lotg  leyofiifoig  (jc7roy.Qiq)Oig,  dnaTaiisroi  Tijj 
o/HMi'vfda  7b)f  ukrjdiviav  ^i^Umi"  nuQuxuXb}  uri)(Fadui,  el  tteqI  (Of  inia- 
juade,  ne^l  jovtwv  f^ivrjfiovfveiv  yQucpui,  did  te  t/ji'  dr&yy.rjv  xal  to 
%Qi\aiiiov  jrig  ixxXijalag.  MO-^mv  8k  tovtoiv  fivi]^ovevEiv,  %gr^ao/iiat  TVQug 
avajaatv  jr^g  ijiinvTOv  T6i./JTjg  rw  tiina  rod  EvayysliaTOv  Aovxa,  Myan'  xul 
uvioc'  ' Enei8^nEQ  jifsg  ene/Eloijauv  dfuju^ocaOuv  kuvToTg  rd  'kEy6^svu 
d.Tc6KQV(ftt,  y.al  inifii^av  Tuvia  ttj  S^eonvEvaxa  y^aqp-fj,  nEQi  \g  inXTjQOcpo- 
Qrfirjuev,  xaOotg  naoidoaav  joTg  nuTgdcaiP  ol  d.ri'  ugx^?  avTimai,  teal  vni]Qiiui, 
yEv6fiEvov  TOv  }.6yov  sdo^s  x<x/uol,  ttqotquttepti,  naqd.  yvtjaiMV  uSElcpibi'  yul 
uuOovji  avwdev,  ki,iig  ixdiadav  r(i  y.avovi'Q6f.iEva  xul  naoadodifTa,  niaievdtv- 
lu  XE  ■d'tla  elfui,  ^i^}.lu,  Ivu  laaaxog,  eI  /uiv  i]nuj7\di],  xuTayvtL  xmp  nXuvrj- 
a(jLVT(x)v,  6  8b  xaduQog  8iufiEivug  %alQT^  tcijXiv  inof-iifivijaxofiEvog.  'Eazi, 
jolvvv  TTj?  fiEf  naXuiag  8in6i\xi]g  ^iSKa  to  CnQiOfiG  j(x  rcuvja  elxoatSvo- 
joauvia  yuQ,  &g  Tjxouaa,  xul  xd  (noi/Eia  id  rra^'  'E^Qulotg  Eipnv  nagu- 

8i8ojai.      Til  Sk  rdSet  xul  tw    6r6fX(nl   ianv  txaaiov  oviotg "yl/gv 

iO'uT(x)v  TO.  TTJj  Tjakuiag  8icx6i\x}]g  "ajuTui,'  rd  8e  Trig  xaiprig javxa  (as 

in  Cyril)  x(tl  tkxIiv  ' Iojixpvov  anoxijiXvi}ng.   Tavin  mjyal  jov  aonijQlov 

tV  jovTOig  fi6votg  ib  jr^g  sicrESElag  8i8uaxa),Elov   EiayyeXlQETai '.411^ 

EPEXix  ys  nlelovog  uxgi^Elag  irgoatldijut,  xul  xovio  ygdcpuiv  dpayxalug,  (hg 
(Jii  taxi  y.al  exequ  ^ifiUa  rovxwv  e^itiOsp,  oii  xavori'CofiBi'u  fitv,  jExunw- 
fjit'a  8e  nttQ&  T&v  nnxegu)!'  upuyivwaxsaOav  rolg  agxv  ngoaegxo^ipoig  xul 
BovlofiEvoig  xuxi]Xi^odav  top  xrjg  EioE^elag  X6yop'  aoqita  ^oXojuiJwxog  xul 
uocplu  ^tgdc;(,  xul  ' Eadr^g,  xul  'Iov8l6,  xal  To^lag,  xul  Si8u%ri  xulovfji- 
pij  xap  \47ioax6i.o)P,  xul  u  noiff/ip.  Kul  ofiojg  xiIxeIpmp  xuPOPi'Cofiivwp 
xul  Tovxoiv  dpuyiPuaxofiiPMP,  ovduftag  xap  itnoxgvcfMP  fivi^nij,  iclXu  u\ge- 
TixG)p  iaxip  inlroiu,  ygucpipxap  [xev,  ore  S^Elovaiv  aixdL,  /agitousPMP  8c 
xul  ngoaxtdipxotv  uixolg  xgdpovg,  "pu  di?  7xnXat&  ngocpigoPXEg  ng6q>uatp 
f/tijfft;'  dnuxixp  ix  xovxou  xoi>g  axegalovg.  [See  Lardner,  vol.  iv.  p.  153, 
sqq.,  p.  4:10.] 


^26.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  103 

VI.     Canon  of  the  Synopsis  of  Sacred  Scripture." 

"  All  the  Scripture  of  us  Christians  is  divinely  inspired. 
It  contains  not  indefinite,  but  rather  determined  and  can- 
onized books.  These  belong  to  the  Old  Testament." 
The  canon  that  it  gives  is  the  same  with  that  of  Atha- 
nasius.  "  But,  besides  these,  there  are  other  books  of 
the  same  Old  Testament  not  canonical,  but  only  read  by 
[or  to]  the  catechumens.  Such  are  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon, the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  Esther, 
Judith,  and  Tobit.  These  are  not  canonical.  Some 
of  the  ancients  say  the  book  of  Esther  was  deemed  ca- 
nonical by  the  Hebrews  ;  and  so  was  the  book  of  Ruth, 
being  united  with  the  Judges,  and  numbered  as  one 
book ;  and  in  this  manner  they  make  up  the  number  of 
twenty-two  books,  which  they  receive  as  canonical 

"  These  are  the  determined  and  canonical  books  of  the 
New  Testament."  It  repeats  the  catalogue  of  Atha- 
nasius.  "  With  these,  there  is  the  Apocalypse  of  John 
the  Divine,  which  is  received  and  approved  as  his  by  the 
ancient,  holy,  and  inspired  Fathers.  Such  are  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  which  are  admitted  to  the  canon, 
and  are,  as  it  were,  the  first-fruits  of  our  faith,  or  its 
anchors  and  foundations,  written  and  published  by  the 
very  apostles  of  Christ,  who  were  with  him,  and  were 
taught  by  him."* 

"  [This  synopsis  is  contained  in  the  works  of  Athanasius ;  but  "  it  is  sup- 
posed by  learned  men  to  be  falsely  ascribed  to  him."  "  It  is  not  mentioned 
by  any  ancient  writer  as  a  work  of  Athanasius."  See  Lardnei;  vol.  iv. 
p.  161,  sqq.] 

''  Synopsis  Script,  sac.  in  Athanasius,  0pp.  ii.  p.  126,  sqq. :  IJaaa  ygcccpri 
Tjfiibf  XQiaiiavCov  S'sdnpsvaiog  iariv,  ovx  di6gi(TToc  ds,  iki.dc  fiuklov  <x)QI(T- 
fjtipa  xal  xsxavovKXfiifa  i)(Bi,  ja  ^i^lla.  Kal  eaTt  Trig  fiev  nakuiag  di- 
adi^XTjg  TccvTot,  (as  in  Athanasius.)  'Eteibg  dh  rovxtav  elal  ndhv  stsqu  ^i^lla 
trig  avTrig  nakaiag  Siad>]xt]g,  ov  xavovit,6i.iEva  fikv,  dvayipoiaxd/neva  dk 
(x6vov  Tolg  xaTtj^^ovfiEvoig,    raOra*  aocpia    SolofmvTog,  aocplu    ' Irjoov   vlov 


104  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^  26. 

V^II.  Canon  of  Epiphanius. 

He  says,  "And  there  are  twentj-two  letters  among  the 
Hebrews ;  and,  following  this  number,  they  estimate  their 
books  at  twenty-two,  although  they  are  in  reality  twenty- 
seven.  But  since  five  letters  among  them  are  doubled, 
and,  therefore,  there  are  really  twenty-seven  letters, 
which  are  reduced  to  twenty-two,  so,  for  this  reason, 
they  enumerate  their  books  as  twenty-two,  though  in 
reality  twenty-seven.  The  first  of  them  is  Genesis  : 
[then  follow]  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteron- 
omy, the  book  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Nave,  of  Job,  of  the 
Judges,  of  Ruth,  the  Psalter,  the  First  of  Chronicles,  the 
Second  of  Chronicles,  the  First  of  Kings,  the  Second  of 
Kings,  the  Third  of  Kings,  the  Fourth  of  Kings,  the  book 
of  Proverbs,  the  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Songs,  the 
twelve  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  the  First  of 

Ezra,  the  Second  of  Ezra,  the  book  of  Esther 

There  is  another  small  book,  called  Kinoth,  or  the  Lam- 
entations of  Jeremiah.     This  is  added  to  Jeremiah."" 

—  '?"/>  'EadriQ,  'lovdW,  TwSlr.  Toaavra  xal  ra  //r)  xavovil^oiAEva.  Tivkq 
fiif  TOi  t(5v  nnlaiijiv  slgijKuai,  xuvoviC^Eadai  nag'  'E^qatoiQ  xal  jiif  'Eo- 
OtjQ'  xnl  TTjj'  /jtv  'Povd,  fiBTU  Toi*'  Kqitwv  IvovjLiifTjv,  eIc  'ii'  ^iB^lov  dQtd- 
fjEiadtti,   TTji'  ^6  'Eadi]Q    elg    Etbqov    ev  xal   ovn)    thjlKiv    eU    sixoat,   dvo 

uvfinXTjQOvadai  jbv  &Qidfiov  tw*'  xavovi'Qo/ibfijjy  nag'  avio[g  ^iSlkov 

Ta  6e  r^g  xaivrig  diadrixrjg  n&hv  &gi(j[iiva  t£  xal  xexuvovia^iva  j9ij?A/ce  zav- 

Ttt, (as  in  Athanashis.)  'Enl  xovroig  iail  xal  r^  txTTOx&lvipig  loi&vvov  tov 

■&i-a).6yov,  de/6el(Ta  wc  ixth'ov  xal  iyxoiOsiCm  iWu  Tii'ilni,  uyiun'  xal  nvevfia- 
T0(p6gi>iv  TiurigMP.  Toauma  xal  to.  Trig  xaivrig  Siadi'ixrjg  ^i^Ua,  t&  ye  xavo- 
ri'Q6/J.ePtt  xal  j-qg  niajeMg  -fi/uwi'  oIovfI  uxgodlria^  iiyxygai  xal  igsla/LiaTa, 
tbg  nag'  a-uTCor  Twr  ^u^Tiocndloty  lov  Xoiawv,  to)P  xal  ovyyej'o/uiiwv 
ixfivw  xal  in''   airov  fiaOijiEvdh'Tbtv,  ygaqsrra  xal  ixredlt'Ta. 

"  Epiphanius,  Be  Pond,  et  Mens.  c.  22,  23.  0pp.  ii.  p.  180,  ed.  Petavius : 
^ib  xal  eUxoav  dvo  slal  T(i  Travel;  ToTg  'E^galotg  yg6Lfji(iaTa,  xal  ngbg  cri5Td 
xal  lug  ^l^Xovg  aiiwv  x^'  iiglOfirjaav,  cl'xocrv  km^  ovaag-  dilA'  eneid^ 
5inXovvTM  nivjE  nag'  (KdroTg  (noi)(eia,  Ei'xoat,  inidc  xal  aiidi  bvra,  xal 
Elg  x(f  ^noTElovvzav,  tovtov  x&giv  xal  rug  ^l^lovg,  xl^  o^aag,  x^  nenoiri- 
xaavv.    ^ Slv  ngmij  —  riveoig  — "E^odog  —  Asvnixbv,  'Agidfiol,  Jevteqo- 


§26.]  THE    CIIIllSTIAN    CANON.  105 

In  respect  to  the  Old  Testament,  these  Ccitalogues 
adhere,  with  more  or  less  accuracy,  to  the  Jewish  canon. 
In  regard  to  the  New  Testament,  they  agree,  in  a 
striking  manner,  in  their  reception  of  the  contested 
catholio  Epistles.  However,  they  disagree  upon  the 
Apocalypse. 

Eusebius  gives  the  more  probable  reason  why  the  cath- 
olic Epistles  were  admitted  into  the  catalogues.  "And 
we  know  that  these  (the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude)  are 
publicly  read  with  the  others  in  most  of  the  churches."" 

Jerome  says  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  "  It  is  alleged 
that  this  Epistle  was  published  in  his  (James's)  name 
by  some  other  person,  but  in  progress  of  time  it  obtained 
authority."* 

But  still  there  were  others  who  held  opinions  different 
from  the  common  notion,  respecting  the  catholic  Epis- 
tles. Thus  Didymus,  who  died  A.  C.  392,  says,  "  It 
is  not  to  be  concealed  that  the  present  Epistle  (the  Sec- 
ond of  Peter)  is  forged,  and  although  it  is  published,  yet 
it  is  not  in  the  canon."" 

v^jutov — i)  Tov  ' Iijoov  rov  Navri,  t;  tov  IojS,  —  ■>)  rCof  KqtTwv —  7^  r^g 
'Poiid — TO  WttlrriQioP  —  ■fi  7TQ(lnrj  mv  nuoalEinof.dvMv  —  ITagal.  devri- 
Qa  —  BacriXsiibv  ng(airj,  B.  devriQu,  B.  tqIttj,  B.    Tei6.Qjrj-    ^    IJaQot^fiiuiv 

—  6  txxi.Tjaiaai'^ig  —  to  'Aafia  t.  aafidct.  —  to  ^wdExangdcprjiov — 'Haaiou 

—  'Isgsfdov  — ' le'Qexvi^ — i]  tov  "EuSqa  nqdnrj  —  dEVTiga  —  ■fj  ttjj  'Eadi^g. 

"E(TTt  dt  xul  ttXlrj  ftixodi  8l.3)'Og,  ri  xa/,err«t  Kit'wd,  r^ng  hQfirjvevejat. 

■d-grifog  'legsfilov  uvti]  da  rw  'Isgsfila.  avvdmxETat,,  i]Tig  iarl  negiaari  jov 
dgidfiov,  xul  TW  'lege^lcf.  avvamofisfrj.  See,  also,  Hseres.  viii.  Opp.  i.  p. 
19.  On  the  whole  Bible,  see  Hseres.  Ixxvi.  p.  941.  [Lardner,  vol.  iv.  p. 
186,  sqq.] 

"  Hist  Eccl.  ii.  23:  "  Ojuotg  de  i'ajusv  xal  rainag  fisra  libv  Xoittwv  iv 
nXelcTTttig  dedrjfioaievfih'ag  'Exxlrjolaig. 

''  Jerome,  Script.  Eccl.  c.  2:  Ipsa  epistola  ab  alio  quodam  sub  ejus 
(Jacobi)  nomine  edita  asseritur,  licet  pauUatim  tempore  procedente,  obtinu- 
erit  auctoritatem.     [See  Hug,  1.  c.  p.  622.]     Miinscher,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  72. 

"  Non  est  ignorandum,  praesentem  epistolam  (2  Petri)  esse  falsatam,  quae 
VOL.  I.  14 


106  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^26. 

[In  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  we  find  almost 
all  the  ecclesiastical  writers  admitting  those  books  which 
were  disputed  in  the  beginning  of  that  century,  and 
which  Eusebius  carefully  separates  from  such  as  were 
universally  acknowledged.  At  this  time  they  are  cited 
as  if  they  were  perfectly  indisputable.  Four  of  the 
catholic  Epistles,  namely,  the  Second  of  Peter,  the  Sec- 
ond and  Third  of  John,  and  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  hold  a 
veiy  different  place  in  the  estimation  of  Greek  writers  in 
the  early  and  latter  part  of  this  century.  The  separate 
churches  had  a  closer  union  with  one  another  than  be- 
fore, and  a  greater  uniformity  in  the  canon  was  a  natural 
result. 

Yet,  even  after  this  time,  some  voices  still  continued 
to  be  lifted  up  against  these  books.  Thus,  in  the  sixth 
century,  Cosmas,  above  cited,  omits  all  the  catholic  E])is- 
tles,  on  the  ground  that  the  ancient  church  had  esteemed 
them  doubtful ;  that  the  commentators  had  not  written 
on  these  books,  and  that  they  were  placed  among  doubt- 
ful writings  in  the  catalogues  of  such  men  as  Irena?us, 
Eusebius,  Athanasius,  Amphilochius,  and  Severianus. 

The  Syrian  church  seems  to  have  used  but  three  of 
the  catholic  Epistles,  namely,  the  First  of  Peter,  the 
First  of  John,  and  the  Epistle  of  James.  These  only 
are  found  in  the  Peshito." 

Theodore,  bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  if  we  may  believe 
the  assertions  of  his  enemies,  seems  to  have  examined 
the  canon   with   a  freer  and    more  critical    spirit  than 

licet  publicetur,  non  tamen  in  canone  est.  M.  Biblioth.  Patrum,  (Lugd. 
1677,)  vol.  iv.  p.  327.  Theodorus,  Mopsvest.  (died  425,)  according  to  Leont.  c. 
Nest,  et  Eutych.  1.  iii.  in  Canisii  Lectt.  antiquis,  ed.  Basnage,  vol.  i.  p.  .577. 
Cosmas,  Indicopleustes  (c.  535,)  Topograph,  christ.  in  Mont/aucon,  Nov.  Col- 
lect Patrr.  et  Scriptt  Griec.  vol.  ii.  p.  292. 

"  [See  Assemanni,  Bibliothfca  Clem.  Vat.  Orient,  vol.  iii,  p.  8.] 


^26.]  THE    CHRISTfAN    CANON.  107 

most  of  his  contemporaries.  However,  we  are  1)ut  im- 
perfectly acquainted  with  his  tenets,  for  only  fragments 
of  his  writings  have  reached  us.  Leontius  informs  us 
that  he  rejected  the  Epistle  of  James,  the  books  of 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Solomon's  Song,  and  counted  the 
book  of  Job  a  fiction  based  upon  facts.  But  his  o])in- 
ions  seem  to  have  found  little  support  among  his  con- 
temporaries." 

The  opinion  of  several  Fathers  upon  the  Apocalypse 
has  already  been  given  ;  but  some  others  may  be  no- 
ticed. Gregory  of  Nyssa  places  it  among  the  apocry- 
phal books  ;''  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret  never  mention 
it ;  Jerome  acknowledges  it  was  not  received  by  the 
Greek  church  in  his  time;"  while,  on  the  contrary,  the 
Egyptian  church  received  it,  if  we  may  judge  from  the 
opinion  of  Athanasius  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria.'^  But 
only  a  part  of  the  Oriental  churches  gave  it  a  place  in 
their  canon,  though  Leontius  admits  it,  and  Ephraim 
the  Syrian,  as  well  as  the  Pseudo-Dionysius,  has  a  high 
esteem  for  it.]  ^ 

At  the  end  of  this  century,  the  meaning  of  canonicity 
remained  the  same  as  before  ;  only  the  word  canon  was 
more  commonly  used,  and  perhaps  included  the  collat- 
eral  idea  of  an   ecclesiastical   decision.^      Forged    and 


"  [See  Leontius,  1,  c.  in  Canisii,  Lect.  Antiq.  vol.  i.  p.  577,  cited  in  Miin- 
scher,  1.  c.     Lardner,  vol.  iv.  p.  392,  sqq.] 

''  [0pp.  ii.  p.  61,  But  see,  upon  this  point,  Schmidt,  Hist  Antiq.  Canonia 
V.  et  N.  T.  p.  398,  cited  in  Milnscher.] 

'  [Opp.  iii.  p.  49.] 

<^  [Cyril,  Opp.  ii.  p.  188.] 

'  [Ephraim,  Opp.  ii.  p.  332,  and  Dio7iysius,  Opp.  i.  p.  288.  See  Milnscher, 
1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  61 — 76.] 

^  Since  the  time  of  Semler,  (see  his  Abhandlung  von  freier  Unters.  d.  K, 
vol.  i.  p.  Ii,  sqq.)  false  notions  of  canonicity  have  prevailed  ;  e.  g.,  in  Eichhom, 
1.  c.  §  16,  p.  102,  sqq. ;  in  Schmidt,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  7,  sqq. ;  Hdnlein,  1.  c.  vol.  i, 


108  HISTORY    or    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [§27. 

heretical  writings  were  still  referred  to  by  the  term  apoc- 
ryphal,  and  between  the  two  classes  were  the  books 
that  7night  be  read. 


§27. 

CAiNON   OF  THE   LATIN   CHURCH   IJN    THE   FOURTH  CENTURY. 

In  the  West,  we  find  the  canon  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  enlarged  in  the  same  manner,  hy  the  admis- 
sion of  all  the  catholic  Epistles,  and  the  addition  of  tlie 
Apocalypse,  which  was  not  doubted  in  the  West.  The 
canon,  thus  enlarged,  was  established  by  law.  How- 
ever, at  the  same  time,  looser  principles  w^re  followed  in 
determining  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  led 
to  the  admission  of  several  apocryphal  writings. 

1.  Canon  of  the  council  of  Hippo,  A.  C.  393.  Canon 
36.     "  Besides  the  canonical  Scriptures,  let  nothing  be 

p.  334,  sqq.  ;  Bertkoldl,  p.  55,  sqq.  See,  on  the  other  hand,  a  review  in  the 
Jena  Allg.  lit.  Zeitung  for  1815,  No.  2,  p.  10,  sqq. ;  Hug,  1.  c.  ^S  18 ;  FAch- 
horn,  in  N,  T,  vol.  iv.  p.  40.  [Hug,  in  reference  to  the  N.T.,  uses  the  word 
canon  as  synonymous  with  the  "ru/e  of  faith,  and  that  is  said  to  be  canonical 
wliich  is  authorized  to  declare  this  rule."  In  reference  to  the  O.  T.,  Eich- 
horn  applies  tlie  term  canonical  to  those  writings  that  were  included  in  tlie 
collection  which  he  supposes  was  made  before  Christ. 

Whislon  says  the  books  of  the  O.  and  N.  T.  were  called  canonical,  be- 
cause inserted  in  the  apostolical  canon.  See  his  Essay  on  the  Apost.  const 
ch.  i.  §  6.  But  this  canon  is  well  known  to  be  spurious.  See  Joneses  Meth- 
od of  settling-  the  canonical  Authority,  &c. ;  Lond.  172G,  Svo.  vol.  i.  p.  25.] 

See  Jsidonis,  Pelus.  epist.  144 :  "  Since  these  things  are  so,  let  us  ex- 
amine the  canon  of  truth ;  I  mean  the  sacred  Scriptures."  [The  word  canon, 
xu)'b')f,  originally  meant  the  tongue  of  a  balance.  See  the  Scholiast  on 
Aiislophanes'  Ranse,  v.  809.]  Jluguslinus,  De  Bapt.  ii.  6 :  Aff'eramus  non 
stateras  dolosas,  ubi  appendamus,  quod  volumus  et  quomodo  volumus  pro 
arbitrio  nostro  dicentes :  hoc  grave,  hoc  leve  est.  Sed  afferamus  divinam 
stateram  de  Scripturis  sacris,  tamquam  de  thesauris  dominicis,  et  in  ilia,  quid 
sit  gravius,  appendamus,  imo  non  appendamus,  sed  a  Domino  appensa  cog- 
noscamus.     See  the  quotations  from  Jeroim  and  Rufm,  in  the  next  section. 


^27.]  THE    CimiSTlAN    CANON.  109 

read  in  the  church  under  tlie  title  of  the  divine  Scrip 
tares.     The  canonical  Scriptures  are, 

Genesis ;  Psalter  of  David  ; 

Exodus  ;  Five  books  of  Solomon  ; 

Leviticus  ;  Twelve  books  of  Prophets  ; 

Numbers ;  Isaiah  ; 

Deuteronomy ;  Jeremiah  ; 

Joshua  Son  of  Nun  ;         Daniel ; 

Judges ;  Ezekiel ; 

Ruth ;  Tobit  ; 

Four  books  of  Kings  ;        Judith  ; 

Two  of  Chronicles  ;  Esther ; 

Job  ;  Two  books  of  Ezra ; 

Two  books  of  Maccabees. 

Books  of  the  New  Testament :  — 
Four  books  of  Gospels  ;  Two  of  Peter ; 

Acts  of  Apostles,  one  book  ;  Three  of  John  ; 

Thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul  ;  One  of  James  ; 

One  of  the  same  to  the  Hebrews  ;     One  of  Jude  ; 
The  Apocalypse  of  John. 

To   confirm   this  canon,  let    the    church  on    the   other 
side  of  the  water  be  consulted."" 

°  See  Mansi,  1,  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  924  :  Ut  prseter  Scripturas  canonicas  nihil 
in  ecclesia  legatur  sub  nomine  divinarum  Scripturarum.  Sunt  autem  canon. 
Scriptui'EB:  Gen.,  Exod.,  Levit,  Num.,  Deuteron.,  Jesus  Nave,  Judicum, 
Ruth,  Regnorum  libri  quatuor,  Paralipom.  libri  duo.  Job,  Psalterium  David., 
Salomonis  libin  quinque,  duodecim  libri  Prophetarum,  Esaias,  Jerem.,  Dan., 
Ezech.,  Tobias,  Judith,  Hesther,  Esdrte  libri  duo,  Maccab.  libri  duo.  Novi 
autem  Test  Evangeliorum  libro  quatuor,  Act.  Apostol.  liber  unus,  Pauli 
Apost.  EpistoliB  tredecim,  ejusdem  ad  Hebrseos  una,  Petri  dure,  Joannis  tres, 
Jacobi  una,  Judse  una,  Apocalypsis  Joannis.  Ita  ut  de  confirmando  isto 
canone  transmarina  ecclesia  consulatur.  Compare  Concil.  Carthag.  iii.  can. 
47,  in  Mansi,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  891  ;  also,  Innocent  I,  Epist.  ad  Exuperium,  ibid. 
p.  1091,  sq. ;  Concil.  Rom.  i.  under  Gelasius  I.  in  the  year  A.  C.  491,  ibid, 
vol.  viii.  p.  146,  sqq.     [Lardner,  vol.  iv.  p.  486.] 


no  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^27. 

The  principles  which  led  to  tliis  decision  may  be  un- 
derstood from  Augustine.  "  Those  two  books,"  he  says, 
"  the  one  which  is  called  Wisdom,  the  other  Ecclesias- 
ticus,  are  said  [erroneously]  to  be  Solomon's,  on  account 
of  a  certain  similarity  [of  style  and  design.]  Now,  it 
has  always  been  maintained  that  Jesus  Sirach  wrote 
them ;  nevertheless  they  deserve  to  he  received  as  author- 
ity, and  to  be  numbered  among  the  prophetic  hooksy"- 

Again,  he  says,  "  The  Jews  have  not  that  Scripture 
which  is  called  the  book  of  the  Maccabees,  as  they  have 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  to  which  the 
Lord  gives  his  testimony,  as  to  those  who  are  his  wit- 
nesses. (Luke  xxiv.  44.)  But  it  is  received  by  the 
church,  and  not  without  profit,  if  it  be  read  or  heard 
soberly."* 

He  says  in  another  place,  "  In  respect  to  the  canon- 
ical Scriptures,  we  must  follow  the  authority  of  the 
greatest  number  of  catholic  churches,  among  which  are 
certainly  those  that  retain  the  chairs  of  the  apostles,  and 
were  found  worthy  to  receive  epistles  [from  an  apostle.] 
The  church  follows  this  rule  in  respect  to  the  canonical 
Scriptures.  It  prefers  those  which  have  been  received 
by  all  the  catholic  churches,  to  those  which  some  do  not 
receive  ;  and  respecting  those  which  are  not  received  by 
all,  it  prefers  those  received  by  the  greatest  number  of 
churches,  and  those  of  the  greatest  authority,  to  those  ad- 

"  Augustinus,  De  Doct.  Christ  ii.  8 :  Illi  duo  libri,  unus,  qui  Sapientia,  et 
alius,  qui  Ecclesiasticus  inscribitur,  cte  qiiadam.  similitudine  Salomonis  esse 
dkuntur :  nam  JesiLS  Sirach  eos  conscripsisse  constantissime  perhibetur,  qui 
tamen,  quoniam  in  audoritatem  recipi  meruerunt,  inter  propheticos  nuuie- 
randi  sunt. 

'  Cont.  Gaudent.  i.  31 :  Hanc  quidem  Scripturara,  quae  appellatur  Mac- 
cabaeorum,  non  habent  Judsei,  sicut  legem  et  Prophetas  et  Psalmos,  quibus 
Dominus  testimonium  perhibet,  tanquam  testibus  suis  Luc.  xxiv.  44,  sed 
recepta  est  ab  ecclesia  non  inutiliter,  si  sobrie  legatur  vel  audiatur. 


^27.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  Ill 

mitted  bj  fewer  churches,  and  of  less  authority.  But  if 
it  finds  some  admitted  by  more  churches,  and  others  by 
those  of  greater  authority,  though  this  case  cannot  easily 
be  determined,  I  think  the  latter  are  to  be  held  of 
equal  authority."" 

Still  further,  he  adds,  "  We  will  omit  the  faoies  con- 
tained in  those  writings  called  apocryphal^  because  their 
origin  w^as  hidden,  and  not  known  to  the  Fathers." 
"  The  Manichees  read  the  apocryphal  writings,  written 
in  the  name  of  the  apostles,  by  some  cobblers  of  fables, 
1  know  not  who."* 

Jerome  writes  to  the  same  effect :  "  It  must  be  said 
that  this  Epistle,  which  is  inscribed  to  the  Hebrews,  is 
not  only  received  by  the  church  of  the  West,  but  hith- 
erto by  all  the  ecclesiastical  writers  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, as  the  work  of  Paul  the  apostle.  Many  think  it 
may  be  the  work  of  Barnabas,  or  Clement :  but  it  is  of 
no  importance  whose  it  is,  for  it  is  the  production  of  an 
ecclesiastical  man,  and  it  is  daily  distinguished  by  being 
read  in  the  churches.  But  though  the  custom  of  the 
Latin  church  has  not  admitted  it  among  the  canonical 


"  De  Doct  Christ.  1.  c. :  In  canonicis  Scriptuns  ecclesiarum  catholica- 
rum  quamplurium  auctoritatem  sequatur,  inter  quas  sane  illfe  sint,  quae 
apostolicas  sedes  habere  et  epistolas  accipere  meruerunt.  Tenebit  igitur 
hunc  modum  in  Scripturis  canonicis,  ut  eas,  quse  ab  omnibus  accipiun- 
tur ecclesiis  catholicis,  prseponat  eis,  quas  quidam  non  accipiunt :  in  eis 
vero,  quae  non  accipiuntur  ab  omnibus,  praeponat  eas,  quas  plurcs  graviovcs- 
que  accipiunt,  eis,  quas  pauciores  minorisque  auctoritatis  ecclesiae  tenant. 
Si  autem  alias  invenerit  a  pluribus,  alias  a  gravioribus  haberi,  quamquara 
hoc  facile  invenire  non  possit,  fequalis  tamen  auctoritatis  eas  habendas 
puto. 

'  De  Civit.  Dei,  xv.  23:  Omittamus  earum  scripturarum  fabulas,  quj-, 
apocryphoe  nuncupantur,  eo,  quod  earum  occulta  origo  non  claruit  patribus. 
Cont.  Faustum,  xxii.  79 :  Legunt  scripturas  apocryphas  Manichsei,  nescio  a 
quibus  sutoribus  fabularum  sub  nomine  apostolorum  scriptas.  Compare 
Marheinecke,  Syst.  d.  Katholicismus,  vol.  i.  2,  p.  231. 


112  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^27. 

Scriptures,  as  the  Greek  church,  using  the  same  liberty, 
have  not  accepted  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  yet,  never- 
theless, we  accept  both,  not  adhering  to  the  custom  of 
this  age,  but  following  the  authority  of  ancient  writers, 
who  continually  make  use  of  the  testimony  of  both,  [the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse,]  as  if  they 
were  canonical  and  ecclesiastical,  and  do  not  use  them 
merely  now  and  then,  as  they  do  the  apocryphal  wri- 
tings."" 

However,  in  opposition  to  this  inaccuracy  on  the  part 
of  the  church,  the  learned  still  held  fast  to  the  Jewish 
canon,  and  distinguished  the  writings  read  in  the  church, 
and  now  called  apocryphal,  from  the  canonical  writings. 
Thus  Jerome  says,  "  The  language  of  the  Syrians  and 
the  Chaldees  is  a  standing  proof  that  there  are  two-and- 
twenty  letters  among  the  Hebrews.  But  among  the  He- 
brews five  letters  are  double :  Caph,  Mem,  Nun,  Pe,  Sade. 
Hence,  by  most  men,  five  books  are  considered  as  double, 
namely,  Samuel,  Melachim,  [Kings,]  Dibre  Hajamim, 
[Chronicles,]  Ezra,  Jeremiah  with  Kinoth,  that  is,  the 
Lamentations.  Therefore,  as  there  are  twenty-two  let- 
ters, so  twenty-two  volumes  are  reckoned.  The  first  box)k 
is  called  by  them  Beresith,  which  we  call  Genesis  ;  the 

"  Hieronymus,  Ep.  ad  Dardan.  vol.  ii.  p.  608,  ed.  Mmiianay  :  Illud  nos- 
txis  dicendum  est,  banc  epistolam,  quae  inscribitur  ad  Hebrseos,  non  solum  nb 
ecclesiis  Orientis,  sed  ab  omnibus  retro  ecclesiasticis  Grseci  sermonis  scrip- 
toribus  quasi  Pauli  apostoli  suscipi,  licet  plerique  earn  vel  Barnaba3,  vel 
dementis  arbitrentur :  et  nihil  interesse,  cujus  sit,  quum  ecdesiastici  viri  sit 
et  quotidie  ecdesiarum  ledione  celebretur.  Quod  si  earn  Latinorum  consue- 
tude non  recipit  inter  Scripturas  canonicas,  nee  Greecorum  quidem  ecclesiie 
Apocalypsin  Johannis  eadem  libertate  suscipiunt,  et  tamen  nos  utramque 
suscipimus :  nequaquam  hujus  temporis  consuetudinem,  sed  veterum  scrip- 
torura  auctoritatem  sequentes,  qui  plerumque  utriusque  abutuntur  testimo- 
niis,  non  ut  interdum  de  apocryphis  facere  solent,  sed  quasi  canonic  is  et 
ecclesiasticis. 


^27.]  THE    CHRISTIAxN    CANOxX.  113 

second,  Veelle  Sernoth,  [Exodus  ;]  the  third,  Vajikra,  that 
is,  Leviticus  ;  the  fourth,  Vajedabber,  Numbers ;  the  fifth, 
Elle  haddebarim,  Deuteronomy.  These  are  the  five 
books  of  Moses,  which  are  properly  called  Thora,  that 
is,  the  Law. 

"  The  Prophets  make  the  second  class,  and  begin  with 
Jesus  Son  of  Nave,  whom  they  call  Joshua  Beu  Nun  : 
next  they  place  Sophetim,  that  is,  the  book  of  Judges, 
and  in  the  same  they  include  Ruth,  because  the  events 
of  the  history  transpired  in  the  days  of  the  judges  : 
Samuel  follows  the  third,  which  we  call  the  First  and 
Second  of  Kings :  the  fourth  is  Melachim,  that  is,  of 
the  Kings,  which  is  contained  in  the  Third  and  Fourth 
Books  of  the  Kings  :  the  fifth  is  Isaiah ;  the  sixth,  Jere- 
miah; the  seventh,  Ezekiel ;  the  eighth,  book  of  the 
twelve  Prophets,  which  they  call  Thereasar. 

"  The  third  class  contains  the  Hagiographa.  The 
first  book  begins  with  Job ;  the  second,  with  David, 
whom  they  comprise  in  one  book  of  Psalms,  in  five 
divisions  :  the  third  is  Solomon,  in  three  books.  Prov- 
erbs, which  they  call  Misle,  that  is.  Parables  ;  the  fourth, 
Ecclesiastes,  that  is,  Coheleth :  the  fifth  is  the  Song  of 
Songs,  which  they  designate  by  the  title  Sir  Hassirim  : 
the  sixth  is  Daniel ;  the  seventh  Dibre  hajamim,  that  is, 
the  Words  of  Days,  which  we,  with  better  significance, 
may  call  the  Chronicle  of  the  whole  Divine  History,  but 
which,  with  us,  is  inscribed  I.  and  II.  Paralipomenon : 
the  eighth  is  Ezra,  which,  both  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  is  divided  into  ten  books  :  the  ninth  is  Esther. 
And  thus  they  make  twenty-two  books  of  the  old  Law, 
namely,  five  of  Moses,  eight  of  the  Prophets,  and  nine  of 
the  Hagiographa.  However,  some  enroll  Ruth  and  Ki- 
noth  among  the  Hagiographa,  and  think  these  books  are 

VOL     I.  15 


114  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [%  2^* 

to  be  added  to  the  number;  and  thus  they  compute  twenty- 
four  books  of  the  ancient  Law Whatever  exists 

besides  these  is  to  be  placed  in  the  Apocrypha.  Accord- 
ingjly,  IVisdom,  which  is  commonly  inscribed  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  the  book  o{  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  of  Judith 
and  Tobit,  and  the  Shepherd,"  are  not  in  the  canon. 
The  First  Book  of  the  Maccabees  is  extant  in  Hebrew, 
but  the  Second  was,  originally,  Greek,  which  may  be 
proved  from  its  phraseology." 

Again,  he  says,  "  The  book  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Si~ 
rach  is  said  to  be  perfectly  favorable  to  virtue,  (navd- 
()tTog,)  and  the  other  book,  inscribed  the  Wisdom  of  Sol- 
omon, is  a  misnomer,  (i^'ivdcTiiyQacpoQ.) The  church 

indeed  reads  the  books  of  Judith  and  To})it,  and  the 
Maccabees  ;  but  it  does  not  admit  them  among  its  canon- 
ical Scriptures  ;  and  so  it  reads  these  two  books  for  the 
edification  of  the  people,  but  not  to  establish  the  authoriiij 
of  the  doctrhies  of  the  church.''''^ 

"■  It  is  doubtful  what  book  is  here  referred  to,  Munscliei\  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  84, 
says  he  refers  to  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas ;  but  Augnsti,  Einleit.  §  54,  thinks 
he  refers  to  the  Greek  book  of  Esdras.  To  judge  from  Athanasius,Ep.  fest., 
cited  in  §  26,  above,  and  from  RufiniLS,  Expos.  Symb.  Apost,  the  former  is 
the  more  probable  supposition. 

*  Hieron.  in  prologo  galeato :  Viginti  et  duas  litteras  esse  apud  Hebrsaos, 
Syrorum  quoque  lingua  et  Chaldreorum  testatur.  —  Porro  quinque  litterEe  du- 
plices  apud  Hebrseos  sunt,  Caph,  Mem,  Nun,  Pe,  Sade.  Unde  et  quinque  a 
plerisque  libri  duplices  existimantur,  Samuel,  Melachim,  Dibre  Hajamim, 
Esdras,  J  eremias  cum  Kinoth,  i.  e.  Lamentationibus  suis.  Q,uomodo  igitur  xxii. 
elemcnta  sunt.  —  Ita  xxii.  volumina  supputantur.  Primus  apud  eos  liber  voca- 
tur  Beresith,  quem  nos  Genesin  dicimus  :  secundus  Veelle  Semoth :  tertius 
Vnjikra,  i.  e.  Leviticus  :  quartus  Vajedabbcr,  quem  Numeros  vocamus  :  quin- 
tu.s  Elle  haddebarim,  qui  Deuteronomium  prscnotatur.  Hi  sunt  quinque  libri 
Mosis,  quos  proprie  Thora,  i.  e.,  Legem,  appellant.  Secundum  Prophctarum 
ordinem  faciunt,  et  incipiunt  ab  Jesuflio  JVave,  qui  apud  eos  Josuc  Ben  JVnn 
dicitur.  Demde  subtexunt  Sophetiin,  i.  e.,  Judicum  librum :  et  in  eundem 
compingunt  Ruth,  quia  in  diebus  judicum  facta  ejus  narratur  historia :  ter- 
tius soquitur  Samuel,  quem  nos  Regum  I.  et  IL  dicimus :  quartus  Melachim, 

i.  e.,  Regum,  qui  IIL  et  IV.  Regum  volumine  continetur Quintus  est 

J^saias :  sextus  Jeremias :  septimus  Ezechiel :  octavus  liber  duodecim  Pro- 


^27.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  115 

Hilary,  who  flourished  about  A.  C.  354,  speaks  in 
the  same  way.  "  The  Law  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
distributed  into  twenty-two  books,  that  they  may  agree 

with  the  number  of  letters But  some  think  that 

Tobit  and  Judith  should  be  added,  to  make  twenty-four 
books,   conformably  to  the  number  of  Greek  letters."' 

Riifin  has  given  his  opinion  as  follows :  "  It  is  the 
holy  spirit  which  inspired  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  in 
the   Old  Testament,  and  the   Gospels    and   Apostles  in 

the  New And  therefore  it  seems  proper  in  this 

place to  designate  what  are  books  of  the  New  and 

Old  Testament,  which,  after  the  tradition  of  the  elders, 
are  believed  to   be  inspired  and   handed    down  in  the 

phefarum,  qui  apiid  illos  vocatur  Thereasar.  Tertius  ordo  Hagiographa 
possidet  Et  primus  liber  incipit  a  Job  :  secundus  a  David,  quern  quiuquc 
incisionibus  et  uno  Psalmorum  volumine  comprehendunt :  tertius  est  Sulo- 
mon  tres  libros  habens,  Proverhia,  quae  illi  Misle,  i.  e.,  Parabolas  appellant : 
quartus  Ecdesiastes,  i.  e.,  Coheleth:  quintus  Canticum  Canticorum,  quern 
titulo  Sir  Hassirini  prsenotant:  sextus  est  i^ajiieZ :  septimus  Z)('6re  hnjamhn, 
i.  e.,  Verba  Dierum,  quod  sigiiificantius  Chronicon  totius  Divince  Historice  pos- 
sumus  appellare,  qui  liber  apud  nos  Paralipomenon  I.  et  II.  inscribitur :  oc- 
tavus  Esdras,  qui  et  ipse  similiter  apud  GraBcos  et  Latinos  in  duos  libros  di- 
visus  est :  nonus  Esther.  Atque  ita  fiunt  pariter  Veteris  Legis  libri  xxii.,  i.  e., 
Mosis  V.  et  Prophetarura  viii.,  Hagiographorum  ix.  Quanquam  nonnulli 
Ruth  et  Kinoth  inter  Hagiograpiia  scriptitent  et  hos  libros  in  suo  putent 

mimero  supputandos  ac  per  hoc  priscse  legis  libros  viginti  quatuor 

Quicquid  extra  hos  est,  inter  J]pocr\jpha  poncndum.  Igitur  Sapientia,  quee 
vulgo  Salomonis  inscribitur,  et  Jesu  filii  Sirach  liber  et  Judith  et  Tobias  et 
Pastor  non  sunt  in  Canone.  MaccabtBorum  primum  librum  Hebraicum 
reperi,  secundus  Grfficus  est,  quod  ex  ipsa  quoque  phrasi  probari  potest. — 
Prajf.  in  libros  Salomonis:    Fertur  et  Tiat'dcoeTo;  Jesu  filii  Sirach  liber  et 

alius  ipsvSeTTlyQuq.o;,  qui  Sapientia  Salomonis  inscribitur Sicut  ergo 

Judith  et  Tobi  et  Maccabaeorum  libros  legit  quidem  Ecclesia,  sed  inter  ca- 
nonicas  Scripturas  non  recipit,  sic  et  haec  duo  volumina  legat  ad  a?difica- 
tionem  plebis,  non  ad  audoritatem  ecdesiasticoruin  dogmatum  conjrrman- 
dam. 

"  Hilarius  in  prolog,  in  Psalm,  explanat.  p.  8: in  xxii.  libros  Lox 

Vet.  Test,  deputatur,  ut  cum  litterarum  numero  convenirent Quibusdam 

autem  visum  est,  additis  Tobia  et  Judith  viginti  quatuor  libros  secundum 
numerum  Grsecarum  litterarum  connumerare. 


116  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^27. 

churches  of  Christ.  Accordingly,  the  first  of  all  in  the 
Old  Testament,  the  five  books  of  Moses  are  transmitted 

after  these,  Jesus  Nave,  the  books  of  Judges,  and 

Ruth  with  it ;  after  these,  four  books  of  kings,  which  the 
Hebrews  call  two  ;  Chronicles,  which  they  call  the  Book 
of  Days  ;  two  books  of  Ezra,  each  of  which  is  computed 
as  a  single  book  with  them,  and  Esther  ;  of  the  Prophets, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Daniel ;  besides  one 
book  of  the  twelve  Prophets ;  Job  also,  and  the  Psalms 

of  David,  single  books  ;  three  books  of  Solomon 

But  of  the  New  Testament,  four  Gospels Acts 

of  the  Apostles fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul ;  two  of 

Peter  ;  one  of  James  ;  one  of  Jude  ;  three  of  John  ;  the 
Apocalypse  of  John.  It  is  these  which  the  Fathers  in- 
clude in  the  canon,  and  on  which  they  ivish  the  doctrines 
of  our  faith  to  depend.  But  be  it  known  there  are  other 
books  which  are  not  called  canonical,  but  ecclesiasticcd, 
by  the  elders.  Such  is  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and 
that  other  Wisdom  which  is  ascribed  to  the  So7i  of  Si- 
rach,  which  is  called  by  the  general  name  Ecclesiasticus 
among  the  Latins,  by  which  term  the  quality  of  the 
book,  and  not  its  author,  is  designated.  Of  the  same 
class  is  the  little  book  of  Tobit  and  Judith,  that  of 
the  Maccabees,  and  the  little  book  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament attributed  to  the  Shepherd,  or  to  Hennas,  and 
called  the  Two  Ways,  or  the  Judgment  of  Peter. 
Tiiere  are  some  who  wish  all  of  these  to  be  read  in  the 
churches,  but  think  that  arguments  are  not  to  he  drawn 
from  these  to  confirm  the  authority  of  the  faith.  But 
some  other  scriptures  they  call  apocryphcd,  which  they 
do  not  wish  to  have  read  in  the  churches."" 


"  Ryfinus,  in  Expos,  in  Symb.  Apost.  (ad  calcem  0pp.  Cypriani,  ed. 
Dxon.  p.  26) :    Spiritus  sancta  est,  qui  in  Vet.  Test.  Legem  et  Prophetas,  in 


^28.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  117 

^28. 

CANON   OF   THE   PROTESTANTS   AND   MODERN   CATHOLICS. 

The  Protestants  have  been  diligent  in  this  depart- 
ment of  criticism,  and,  in  respect  to  the  Old  Testament, 
have  gone  back  to  the  Jewish  canon,  and  separated  the 
books  which  had  been  added  by  the  Alexandrian  ver- 
sion,  from  the  Hebrew  text."     But,  in  respect   to   the 

Novo  vero  Evangelia  et  Apostolos  inspiravit Et  ideo,  cjuse  sunt  Novi 

ac  Vet.  Instrument!  volumina,  quae  secundum  majorum  traditionem  per  ip- 
sum  spiritum  sanctum  inspirata  creduntur  et  ecclesiis  Christ!  tradita,  com- 

petens  videtur  !n  hoc  loco des!gnare.     Itaque  Vet.  Instrument!  pr!mo 

omnium  Moysis  quinque  libri  sunt  traditi post  hos  Jesu  Nave  et  Ju- 

dicum  simul  cum  Ruth:  quatuor  post  hffic  Regnorum  libri,  quos  Hebrsei 
duos  numerant:  Paralipomenon,  qui  dierum  dicitur  liber:  et  Esdrs  libri 
duo,  qui  apud  illos  singuli  computantur,  et  Hesther.  Prophetarum  vero 
Esaias,  Hierem.,  Ezech.,  et  Daniel. :  prajterea  xii.  Prophetarum  liber  unus. 

Job  quoque  et  Psalmi  David  singuli  sunt  libri :    Salomonis  vero  tres 

Novi  vero  (Test.)  iv.  Evangg Actus  Apostolorum Paul!  Epistolse 

xiv.,  Petri  !!.,  Jacob!  una,  Judse  una,  Joannis  iii.,  Apocalypsis  Joannis, 
Hsec  sunt,  qu(B  Pcdres  intra  Canonem  concluseriint,  ex  quibus  Jidei  nostrce  as- 
sertiones  constare  voluerunt.  Sciendum  tamen  est,  quod  et  alii  libri  sunt, 
qui  non  canonici,  sed  ecdesiastici  a  majoribus  appellati  sunt:  ut  est  Sapien- 
tia  Salonwnis,  et  alia  sapientia,  qua;  dicitur  Filii  Sirach,  qui  liber  apud 
Latinos  general!  vocabulo  Ecclesiasticus  appellatur,  quo  vocabulo  non  auctor 
libelli,  sed  scripturse  qualitas  cognominata  est.  Ejusdem  ordinis  est  libellus 
TobicB  et  Judith  et  Maccab.  libri.  In  Novo  vero  Test,  libellus,  qui  dicitur  Pas- 
ioris  sive  Hennatis,  qui  appellatur  dune  viae,  vel  judicium  Petri :  quiE  omnia 
leg!  quidem  in  ecclesiis  voluerunt,  non  tamen  proferri  ad  auctorUatem  ex  his 
Jidei  coiifirmandam.  Ceteras  vero  scripturas  apocnjphas  nominarunt,  quas  in 
ecclesiis  leg!  noluerunt  [See  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  p.  532,  sqq.  vol.  iv.  p.  483, 
sqq.]  See  the  divergent  and  more  free  opinions  of  Junilius,  De  Partibus 
Legis  divinae, !.  3 — 7,  in  Bibliotheca  Max.  Patrum,  vol.  x.  p.  340;  of  Isidorus, 
Hispal.  De  Ecclesiast.  Offic.  !.  12.  Against  such  as  doubted  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, see  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Toledo,  held  A.  C.  633,  in  Harduin. 
Act.  Concil.  vol.  iii.  p.  584.     [Lardner,  vol.  v.  p.  135,  sqq.] 

"  See  Lidher^s  Preface,  in  German,  to  Jesus  Sirach,  in  the  Halle  edition 
of  his  works,  vol.  xiv.  p.  91,  the  Preface  to  Baruch,  p.  93,  and  the  books  of 
Maccabees,  p.  94.     ^indr.  Carlstadt,  De  Scripturis  canonicis ;  Viteb.  1521. 


118  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF  [^28. 

New  Testament,  doubts  liave  freely  risen  again  on  the 
books  that  were  contested  in  the  ancient  church." 

In  opposition  to  this  method,  the  council  of  Trent,  by 
the  following  decree,  declared  all  the  books  in  the  Vul- 
gate to  be  canonical :  — 

"  If  any  one  will  not  receive  as  sacred  and  canonical 
the  whole  books,  with  all  their  parts,  as  they  are  wont  to 
be  read  in  the  Catholic  church,  and  in  the  old  Vulgate 
Latin  edition,  and  if,  knowingly  and  wilfully,  he  shall 
despise  the  aforesaid  traditions,  let  him  be  accursed."* 

Several  of  the  Fathers,  however,  sought  to  moderate 
this  hard  conclusion ; "  and  some  learned  Catholics  at- 
tempted to  avoid  it,  by  making  a  distinction  between 
the  first  and  second  canon.  "  Therefore,"  says  Lamy, 
"  the  books  which  are  in  the  second  canon,  though  con- 
joined with  others  of  the  first  canon,  are,  nevertheless, 
not  of  the  same  authority."'^ 

Welche  Biicher  heilig  und  biblisch  sind. ;  1521.  Flachis,  Clavis  Script 
Sac.  vol.  ii.  p.  46.     J.  Gerhard,  Loc.  Tlieol.  i.  6,  vol.  ii.  p.  54,  sqq.  ed.  Cott. 

"  LuUier^s  Preface  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  ibid.  vol.  xiv.  p.  147 ; 
to  the  Epistle  of  James,  p.  148.  Carlstadt,  1.  c,  renews  the  doubts  against 
the  Apocalypse. 

''  Sess.  iv.  c.  1 :  Si  quis  libros  integros  cum  omnibus  suis  partibus,  prout 
in  ecclesia  catholica  legi  consueverunt,  et  in  veteri  vulgata  Latina  editiane 
habentur,  pro  sacris  et  canonicis  non  susceperit,  et  traditiones  prjedictas 
sciens  et  prudens  contemserit,  anathema  sit.  Compare  the  two  decrees  of  the 
council  of  Trent,  witli  Prefaces  and  Glosses,  by  an  unknown  author,  in  Lu- 
thtr's  Works  ;  Halle  ed.  vol.  xvii.  p.  1192,  sqq.  Chemnitius,  Exam.  Concil. 
Trid.  vol.  i.  p.  50,  sqq. 

"  Paul  Sarpi,  Hist,  del  Concil.  Trid.  vol.  ii.  p.  157 ;  ed.  Geneva,  1660. 
Palavicini,  Hist.  Concil.  Trid.  vi.  Jahn,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  140.  Marheinecke, 
System  d.  Katholicismus,  vol.  i.  2,  p.  235,  sqq.  [See,  also,  J.  H.  Von  Wessen- 
berg,  Die  grossen  Kirchenversammlungen  des  15'=°  and  16"""  Jahrhunderts, 
&c. ;  Constanz.  1840,  4  vols.  8vo.  vol.  iii.  p.  205,  sqq.] 

^  Bern.  Lamy,  Apparat.  bibl.  1.  ii.  c.  5,  p.  333 ;  ed.  Lugd.  1723  :  Idcirco 
libri,  qui  in  secundo  canone  sunt,  licet  conjuncti  cum  ceteris  primi  canonis, 
tamen  non  sunt  ejusdem  auctoritatis.    Jahn,  1.  c.  p.  141,  sqq. 


^29.]  THE    CHRISTIAN    CANON.  119 

^29. 

RESULTS  OF  THE  HISTORY   OF    THE   CANON   IN   RESPECT 
TO   CRITICISM. 

Since  the  grounds  for  determining  the  limits  of  the 
canon  are  in  part  dogmatical^  and  in  part  critical^  the 
question  arises,  What  value  is  to  be  placed  on  the  critical 
arguments  ?  In  determining  this  canon,  the  Jews  looked 
more  to  the  age  than  to  the  authors  of  the  books, 
(^  16,)  and  they  seem  to  have  followed  a  method  of 
decision  which  is  entirely  inaccurate.  The  Christians, 
in  determining  the  canonicity  of  a  book,  regarded  the 
author,  and  had  a  certain  historical  feeling  for  its  genu- 
ineness ;  but  this,  however,  was  not  pure  and  clearly 
developed.  The  tradition  of  the  church  appeared  to 
them  rather  in  the  light  of  an  authority,  than  that  of  an 
cmdence,  into  which  at  last  it  resolves  itself."  In  their 
inquiries  they  did  not  enter  enough  into  details,  nor  go 
back  to  the  primitive  sources,  but  judged  of  the  book 
more  as  a  whole,  and  in  the  mass.  They  made  only 
some  feeble  attempts  to  apply  the  internal  critical  argu- 
ment, and  went  to  work  rather  anticipating  their  con- 
clusion, than  pursuing  a  critical  investigation  of  the 
matter.  But  after  the  first  century,  all  sense  of  histori- 
cal truth  was  lost,  and  a  reliance  on  authority,  and  a 
reference  to  the  decision  of  the  church,  destroyed  all 
critical  inquiry.* 

"  [The  reformers  proceeded  on  the  opposite  principle.  Luther  did  not 
hesitate  to  reject  the  Epistle  of  James  because  it  was  epistola  straminea,  — 
a  letter  of  straw.  See  Calvin,  Institut  Christ  Rel.  i.  c.  7,  §  4,  5.  Oioen, 
On  the  Divine  Original  of  Scrip,  ch.  ii.  §  5,  and  iv.  §  5.] 

'  See  Jjucke,  Ueber  d.  neutest.  Kanon  des  Eusebius,  p.  28,  sqq. 


120 


PART  11. 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CANONICAL 
BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


BOOK  I. 

ON   THE  ORIGINAL   LANGUAGE    OF   THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT. 


%30. 
NAME,  COUNTRY,  AND  ORIGIN,  OF  THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE. 

The  Hebrew  language,"  in  which  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  the  Old  Testament  is  written,  was  the  language 
of  the  Hebrews,  or  Israelites,*  in  the  time  of  their  in- 
dependence. 

"  tT'^pS'    "^i'iib-     In  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  called   "^y^s  risia ,  (Isa.  xix. 

18,)  n"'^1^'^)  (2  Kings  xviii.  26.)     Comp.  Isa.  xxxvi.  11,13.     Neh.  xiii.  24. 

In  the  Prologue  to  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  it  is  "E^Qaiail, 
but  in  the  N.  T.  this  term  designates  the  common  vernacular  tongue.  See 
John  V.  2.  xix.  13.  Acts  xxi.  40.  xxii.  2.  xxvi.  14.  Josephus,  Antiq.  (Book 
i.  1,  2,)  calls  it  j^Auttk  Twt>  'E^galiof,  [the  language  of  the  Hebrews.]  In 
the  Targums  it  is  called  j^ffln^p-i  'j'o"^,  e.g.  in  the  Pseudo  Jonathan's  Tar- 
gum  upon  Gen.  xxi.  47. 

*  The    most  probable  etymology   of  the  word   Hebrew,    is    from    ^;jy 

1.  e.  ^nsn  '^'yS-  So  that  t-^S,  nBQdcrrjg,  (Gen.  xiv.  13,  in  LXX.)  ap- 
plies to  Abraham's  migration.  See  R.  Bechai,  Maimonides,  and 
other  rabbins,  Milnster,  Forster,  Geseniv^,  Gesch.  d.  Heb.  Sprache  und 
Schrift.  p.  11.     fin  Appendix,  D.]     It  has  been  incorrectly  derived  from 


^30.]     LANGUAGE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       121 

This  was  also,  with  some  modifications,  the  language 
of  the  other  inhabitants  of  Canaan  ;  of  the  Phoenicians, 
and  the  Carthaginians,  who  were  descended  from  them. 
It  appears  that  the  Hebrew  was  the  same  as  the  Ca- 
naanitish  and  Phcenician  language,  from  the  following 
considerations  :  —  1.  From  the  pro])er  names  in  the  Bi- 
ble ;  2.  From  the  fragments  of  the  Phoenician  and  Car- 
thaginian language  still  remaining;"  o.  From  the  silence 
of  the  Bible  respecting  any  difference  between  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Canaanites  and  Hebrews;*  and,  4.  From 
the  testimony  of  Augustine  and  Jerome/ 

Without  doubt,  it  originated  in  the  land,  or  was  still 

15»,  by  Grotius,  (see  PFaMon,  Prolog,  iii.  1,)  or  from  the  Patriarch 
^23>,  (Gen.  X.  24.  xi.  14.)  Buxtorf,  Loscher,  Hezel,  Gesch.  d.  Heb.  Sprach. 
p.  7.    Eivald,  Krit.  Gram.  d.  Heb.  Sprach. ;  Lpzg.  1827,  §  4. 

Augustine  ungrammatically  derives  it  from  Dj-TnliiH  5  quaest,  in  Gen.  i.  24. 

T  T  ;  - 

Wahl  (Gesch.  d.  Morgendl.  Sprachen.  p.  453)  is  of  the  opinion  that 
1-1255,  as  also  'i-i^y,  (perhaps  indicating  the  Western  nations,)  is,  origi- 
nally, synonymous  with  q-i5»  . 

Israelite  is  a  patronymic,  from  ^s^'niai ,  but  was  used  only  among  the  natives 

themselves,  while  the  terms  Hebrews  and  Jews  were  used  by  foreigners. 
[See  Gesenius''s  Hebrew  Grammar,  ConanVs  translation,  §  1  and  2.] 

"  See  Gesenius,  Excursus,  in  his  Geschichte  der  hebr.  Sprache,  p.  223,  sqq. 
Bellermann,  De  Phoenicum  et  Pcenorum  Inscriptionibus ;  Berlin,  1810. 
Eichhorn,  Geschichte  der  Litteratur,  vol.  v.  pt.  i.  p.  453,  sqq. 

*  See,  on  the  contrary.  Psalm  Ixxxi.  6.   cxiv.  1.   Isa.  xxxvi.  11.    Jer.  v.  15. 

°  Augustinus,  Contra.  Litteras  Petiliani,  lib.  ii.  ]04;  Tract,  xv.  in  Joan. 
QuBBst.  in  Jud.  lib.  vi.  16.  Jerome,  in  Isa.  lib.  vii.  Jer.  lib.  v.  ch.  25.  Prsf. 
in  Ep.  ad  Galat  See  Walton,  Proleg.  iii.  §  14,  sqq.  Bochart,  Canaan,  ii.  1. 
Clericus,  De  Lingua  Heb.  No.  5.  Bellermann,  Erklarung  der  punischen 
stellen  im  Pcsnulus  des  Plautus,  vol.  i.  p.  5,  sq.,  and  iii.  p.  5,  sq.  [We  may 
justly  conclude,  says  Palfrey,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  6,  7,  (see  Walton,  Prolegg.  iii.  and 
Bathe's  remarks,  in  Prsef.  to  his  edition,  p.  xxi.  sqq. ;  Ackerblad,  Inscript. 
Phoenic.  p.  26,  cited  by  Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  230,)  that  the  Phcenician  language, 
in  ancient  times,  was  entirely  the  same  with  the  Hebrew  in  the  books  now  ex- 
tant. Bochart  attempted  to  prove  this  by  arguments  collected  from  all  quar- 
ters, which  now  receive  new  confirmation  from  monuments  not  known  to 
his  age.     See  Appendix,  D.] 

VOL.    I.  16 


122  ON    THE    ORIGINAL    LANGUAGE  [^^^' 

further  developed  therein,  as  a  distinct  branch  of  the 
great  Shemitish  language,  after  the  Hebrew  and  the 
other  Canaanitish  people  had  migrated  thither  from  the 
mother  country." 

ITS   RELATION   TO  THE   OTHER   SHEMITISH    LANGUAGES. 

The  Hebrew  stands  in  so  close  and  obvious  a  relation- 
ship to  the  Aramaean  and  Arabic  languages,  in  its  pro- 
nunciation, its  vocabulary,  and  the  formation  of  its 
words,*  that  all  the  three  have  been  considered  as 
daughters  of  a  common  mother.  The  Hebrew  is  to  bo 
regarded  as  the  oldest  of  these ;  at  least,  its  development 
is  earlier  than  the  others. 

They  resemble  each  other  in  their  gutturals,  triliteral 
roots,  suffix-pronouns,  in  their  conjugations,  declensions, 
the  construct  state,  and  other  peculiarities,  such  as  the 
numerals,  words  denoting  the  family  relation,  and  the 
like. 

These  languages  are  all  conveniently  designated  by 
the  common  term  Shemitish.'' 

"■  On  tlie  high  notions  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  language,  foiTnerly 
lield  by  tlie  learned,  see  StepL  Morinus,  Exercitatt.  de  Lingua  primEeva  ;  Ul- 
traj.  1G94, 4to.  C.  A.  Bode,  Diss,  de  primseva Linguae  Hebr.  Antiquitate,  prccf. 
C.  B.  Michidis,  Halle,  1740.  A.  Pfdfftr,  0pp.  p.  689.  Walton,  Prolegg.  iii. 
§  3,  sqq.  Hezel,  Geschichte  der  hebr-  Sprache,  p.  16,  sqq.  Anton,  De  Lingua 
primaeva  ejusque  in  Lingua  Hebr.  Reliquiis  ;  Viteb.  1800,  4to.  See  a  just 
examination  of  these  opinions  in  Gcsenius,  1.  c.  p.  14,  sqq.  [Appendix,  D.] 
Havernik,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  148,  returns  to  the  old  opinion.  [See,  also,  who 
will.  Home.,  1.  c.  pt.  i.  ch.  i.  sect  i. ;  also,  JFahl,  1.  c.  p.  444 — 500,  and 
Palfrey,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  lect.  i.     See,  also.  Appendix,  E.] 

*  See  John,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  261,  sqq.  [Gesenius,  Hebrew  Grammar,  §  1. 
Gese.niu^,  Preface  to  his  Handworterbuch,  translated  by  Prof.  Robinson,  in 
Biblical  Repository,  vol.  iii.  art.  i.] 

"  Eichhorn,  Allgemeine  Bibliothek  der  biblischen  Litteratur,  vol.  vi.  p. 
772,  sqq. ;  and,  on  the  other  side,  Stange,  Theolog.  Symmicta,  vol.  i.  p.  1. 
[The  chief  objection  to  this  use  of  the  term  comes  from  the  fact  that  some 


^  32.]  OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  123 

^32. 

THE   ARAM^AN   LANGUAGE. 

We  have  no  monuments  remaining  of  the  hmguagc 
which  was  spoken,  during  the  existence  of  the  He- 
brew as  a  living  language,  in  the  Aramaean  countries, 
Syria  and  Mesopotamia.  There  are  only  some  inscrip- 
tions in  the  language  of  Palmyra,  from  the  three  first 
centuries  after  Christ."  From  the  language  of  the  Ara- 
maean countries,  the  Chaldee,  as  it  is  called,  and  the 
Syriac,  are  descended.  On  the  supposition  that  Daniel 
wrote  Chaldee  in  Babylon,  and  the  Jews  brought  this 
language  with  them,  on  their  return,  these  two  languages 
have  been  separated  geographically,  as  if  the  former  had 
been  the  dialect  of  Babylon  and  Chaldea,  and  the  lat- 
ter that  of  Syria  and  North  Mesopotamia.  Therefore 
one  has  been  called  East  Aramaean,  the  other  West 
Aramaean.* 

We  only  learn  the  Chaldee  language  from  Jewish 
memorials.  The  points  of  ditference  between  it  and 
the  Syriac  are  in  part  arbitrary,  such  as  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  the  vowels,  —  and  in  respect  to  this  matter,  there 
were  two  ways  of  pronouncing  among  the  Hebrews 
themselves,  —  and  in  part  consist  of  obvious  Hebraisms, 
and  some  of  them  may  be,  indeed,  only  dialectical  dif- 

ofthe  alleged  descendants  of  Ham  —  the  Canaanites,  for  example  —  spoke 
this  language  ;  but  Eichhorn  thinks  they  did  not  speak  it  originally.  See 
Jldehmg,  Mithridates,  &.c. ;  Berlin,  180G,  4  vols.  8vo.  vol.  i.  p.  300,  sq.] 

"  Wood's  Ruins  of  Palmyra,  otherwise  Tadmor  in  the  Desert ;  London, 
17.53,  fol.  See  an  explanation  of  these  inscriptions  by  Bariheleiny,  Me- 
moires  des  Inscrip.  vol.  xxvi.  577,  sq.,  and  Siointon,  in  Philosophical  Transac- 
tions, xlviii.  2.  690,  sqq.     Kopp,  Bilder  und  Schriften,  vol.  ii. 

'  Michaelis,  Abhandkmg  v.  d.  Syr.  Sprache  ;  Gott.  1768,  p.  8.  On  the  oth- 
er side,  Hupfeld,  in  Theol.  Stud,  und  Krit. ;  1830,  p.  292. 


124  ON,  THE    ORIGIN  \L    LANGUAGE  [§32. 

fereiices  of  llie  same  language.  Therefore  it  may  be 
considered  as  a  branch  of  tlie  Aramaean  or  Syriac,  which 
had  become  degenerated  by  mingling  with  the  Hebrew." 

The  purer  style  of  Onkelos  has  been  called  the  Baby- 
lonian dialect,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  less  pure  lan- 
guage of  the  later  Targums,  which  has  been  called  the 
Jerusalem  or  Palestine  dialect.  But  both  names  rest 
on  uncertain  suppositions. 

The  Samaritan  is  a  mixture  of  Hebrew  and  Arama?an. 
All  the  ecclesiastical  matter  in  that  tongue  is  found  in 
the  version  of  the  Pentateuch  and  some  poems,  edited 
by  Gesenius,  from  manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum.'' 

The  language  which  we  call  the  Syriac  is  a  new  Ara- 
msean  dialect,  which  was  formed  among  the  Christians 
of  Edessa  and  Nisibis.  It  flourished  and  produced  a 
pretty  rich  literature,  particularly  in  theological  and  ec- 
clesiastical departments,  and  is  still  the  ecclesiastical 
language  of  the  Syrian  Christians." 

If  we  follow  the  course  of  history,  the  Aramaean  is 
related  more  closely  to  the  Hebrew  language  than  it  is 
to  the  Arabic.  However,  in  comparison  with  the  latter, 
it  is  poorer,  and  more  simple.'' 

Hupfeld,  1.  c.  Miclmdis,  1.  c.  p.  3G.  See  what  may  be  said  on  the 
otlier  side,  in  Winer,  Granim.  d.  bibl.  und  targum.  Chald.  p.  5.  Real-Hand 
Woiterbuch,  i.  147.     Havernik,  p.  103,  sq. 

''  Lips.  1824,  at  seq.  4to. 

"  Hajfrnanri's  Brief  History  of  the  Syriac  Literature,  in  Bertholdfs  Theolo- 
gische  Journal,  vol.  xiv.  p.  225,  sqq.  Huveniik,  1.  c.  p.  112,  sqq.  The  language 
of  the  Zabians,  or  disciples  of  John,  is  a  new  Aramaean  dialect,  and  a  good 
deal  corrupted.  See  Lorsbach,  in  Staudlins  Beitriige  zur  Pliilosophie  und 
Gescli.  der  Religion,  vol.  v.  p.  1,  sqq.,  and  in  the  Museum  fiir  biblische  und 
orientalische  Litteratur  von  Arnoldi,  Lorsbach,  und  Hartmann,  vol.  i.  pt.  i. 
See,  also,  Codex  Nasarfeus,  Liber  Adami  appellatus,  Syriace  transcriptus 
Latineque  redditus  a  Matth.  JVorberg ;  Lond.,  GotL,  1815,  1816,  3  vols.  4to. 
Lexidion  Cod.  Nas.  ed.  M.  JVorberg ;  ISIG.  Onomasticon  Cod.  Nas. ;  1817, 
4to.    Compare  Allg.  Lit.  Zcit.  for  1817,  No.  48—57. 

^  See  a  judicious  comparison  of  the  two  in  Gesenius,  Gesch.  der  Heb. 
Sprachc,  p.  56.     Michael  is,  1.  c.  p.  21,  sqq, 


^  33.]  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  125 

^33. 
THE  ARABIC  LANGUAGE. 

The  Arabic  language  has  a  more  modern  literature, 
but  one  incomparably  more  rich  and  tasteful."  It  is  still 
the  language  of  a  large  part  of  Asia  and  Africa.  On 
account  of  the  richness  of  its  literature,  its  long  continu- 
ance, and  its  importance  in  respect  to  literature  and  re- 
ligion, it  is  incontestably  the  most  interesting  of  all  the 
Shemitish  languages,  except  the  Hebrew. 

There  are  several  dialects  which  are  not  important  to 
this  subject.*  There  are,  however,  two  main  dialects 
which  are  ancient.  One  of  these,  the  Himjaritic,  which 
was  formerly  spoken  in  Yemen,  is  now  extinct ;  the 
other,  the  Coreitic,  is  spoken  in  the  north-west  of  Arabia, 
and  especially  at  Mecca.  It  has  long  been  cultivated  ; 
it  was  a  written  language  before  the  time  of  Mahomet, 
and  still  more  since  that  time.  Since  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  centuries,  it  has  become  the  prevailing  pop- 
ular language.  The  old  written  language  differs  from 
this  in  its  forms,  which  are  more  various  and  richer  in 
vowels.  It  has,  besides,  a  greater  copiousness.  In  com- 
parison with  the  Hebrew,  the  Arabic  has  the  advantage 
of  greater  affluence  in  respect  to  its  orthography,  gram- 
mar, and  vocabulary." 

The  iEthiopic  is  the  language  of  an  Arabian  colony 
in  -/Ethiopia,  and  is  cognate  with  the  Himjaritic  dialect.'' 

"  Eichhorn,  Gesch.  der  Lit.  vol.  v.  p.  603,  sqq.  Schnuirer,  Bib.  Arab. ; 
Halle,  1811.  GeseniiLS,  article  Arab.  Spr.  Schnft.  und  Lit.  in  Ersch  and  Gru- 
ber's  Encyclop.  vol.  v.     Hdvernik,  1.  c.  p.  119,  sqq. 

*  See  EichhorrCs  account  of  these  dialects,  in  the  preface  to  his  translation 
of  Richardsoii's  Treatise  on  the  Arabic  Language,  &c.  p.  6.  [Addung's 
Mithridates,  vol.  i.  p.  391.] 

"^   Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  56,  [in  Appendix,  D.] 

''  IaiJoIJ]  Com.  ad  Historiam  ^thiop.  p.  57,  sqq.,  and  his  diss,  de  Origine 


126  ON    THE    ORIGINAL    LANGUAGE  [^34. 

There  is  a  translation  of  the  Bible  in  the  written  dialect 
of  Geez.  The  Amharic  dialect  is  the  present  language 
of  the  country." 

§34. 

FORMATION   AND  EXTINCTION   OF  THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE. 

The  Hebrew  language  makes  its  first  appearance,  in 
the  light  of  history,  in  its  complete  form.  The  oldest 
writers,  —  the  authors  of  the  Pentateuch,  of  the  first  his- 
torical books,  —  and  the  authors  of  the  earlier  Psalms  and 
Proverbs,  the  earlier  Prophets,  write  in  the  purest  and 
most  beautiful  language.  Towards  the  end  of  the  Jewish 
state,  during  the  exile  and  after  it,  the  influence  of  the 
Aramsean  language  becomes  visible,  as  well  as  other 
peculiarities  in  the  usages  of  the  Hebrew  language  itself, 
and  in  connection  with  a  perverted  taste.  This  shows 
itself  in  the  later  Prophets,  in  some  of  the  Psalms,  Ec- 
clesiastes,  Esther,  Chronicles,  Daniel,  Jonah,  and  else- 
where. And  yet  the  writers  of  this  period  labored  to 
acquire  the  old  classic  style,  as  it  appears  from  the  works 
of  the  Pseudo-Isaiah.' 

Besides  these  main  differences  of  style,  the  poetic 
may  be   distinguished  from  the  prosaic."     We  can  dis- 

nat.  et  Usu  Linguae  ^Eth.,  prefixed  to  his  ^Ethiopian  Grammar ;  Frankfort, 
1702,  fol.  EicMorn,  De  Cushceis  verosimilia;  Arnst.  1774.  Gesenius  in 
Encyclop.  vol.  ii.  p.  110. 

"  Gesenhis,  article  Amharische  Sprache,  in  AWg.  Encycl.  Th.  iii.  On 
other  ^Ethiopian  dialects,  see  Bruce's  Travels  to  discover  the  Source  of  the 
Nile,  vol.  i.  [See  a  few  words  on  the  Amharic  language,  &c.,  in  Athenaeum 
(London)  for  Jan.  16,  1841,  p.  54.] 

''  [It  will  be  shown  in  its  place,  that  a  large  part  of  the  book  of  Isaiah 
could  not  have  come  from  the  hand  of  that  prophet.  The  author  of  the  spu- 
rious passages  is  here  referred  to  as  the  Pseudo-Isaiah.] 

'  See  Gesenius,  Heb.  Sprache,  p.  22,  sq.  [in  Appendix,  D.]  See,  also,  his 
Lehrgebiiude.  Vogel,  De  Dialectico  poetica  V.  T. ;  Helmst.  1784,  4to. 
iSlvarfs  Hebrew  Grammar,  p.  i.  §  3.] 


^34.]  OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMEiNT.  127 

cover  some  archaisms,  and  traces  of  the  popular  language, 
in  abbreviations,  inaccurate  expressions,  and  the  like,  but 
no  difference  of  dialect."  [It  has  sometimes  been  con- 
tended that  different  dialects  were  found  in  the  Hebrew. 
The  passages  alleged  to  prove  a  diversity  of  dialects  are, 
mainly,  Judges  xii.  6,  where  the  Ephraimites  use  5  for 
s/i ;  Nehem.  xiii.  23,  24,  where  it  is  said  some  spoke, 
in  part,  the  language  of  Ashdod ;  and  Judges  xviii.  3, 
where  a  young  Levite  is  known  by  his  voice.  But,  as 
Gescnius  well  remarks,  it  was  the  voice  of  the  individ-- 
iml,  not  the  tribe  of  Levites,  which  was  peculiar.  Un- 
doubtedly in  Judea,  as  elsewhere,  there  was  a  difference 
between  the  written  and  the  spoken  language  ;  and  in 
times  when  few  could  write,  the  difference  was,  perhaps, 
greater  than  in  a  period  of  more  refinement. 

Eichhorn  maintains  that  there  were  two  chief  dialects, 
the  one  prevailing  east,  the  other  west,  of  the  Jordan  ; 
that  all  the  written  monuments  of  the  Hebrews  are  in 
the  latter,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  scattered  expres- 
sions, such  as  Judges  xii.  3 — 6.  He  speaks  also  of  Sa- 
maritanisms,  in  Amos  and  Hosea.  But  his  conclusions 
and  arguments  are  by  no  means  satisfactory.^  Dereser 
finds  traces  of  a  Moabitish  dialect  in  Ruth.'  Kiesling 
finds  Philistinisms  and  Idumeanisms  in  the  Bible.  But 
Gesenius  opposes  all  these  views.]  '^ 

After  the  exile,  the  Hebrew  language  ceased  to  be 
spoken,  and  only  existed  as  a  learned  and  written  lan- 


"  Eichhorn,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  84,  sq.     Allg.  Bib.  vol.  ix.  p.  235,  sqq. 

*  Eichhorn,  1.  c. 

"  Dereser,  Das  Biichlein  Ruth.  Vorrede,  p.  5,  6. 

**  Kiesling,  De  Dialectis  Heb.  Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  54,  sqq.  However,  the 
passages  in  Judges  xii.  6,  and  Neh.  xiii.  23,  24,  prove  the  existence  of  oral 
differences  in  the  language  of  the  people.  See  Hartmann,  Linguist.  Einleit. 
in  A.  T.  p.  84,  sqq. 


128  ON    THE    ORIGINAL    LANGUAGE  [^35. 

guage."  However,  several  of"  ibe  later  productions  of  the 
Hebrew  literature  owe  their  existence  to  this  artificial 
use  of  a  dead  language.  The  book  of  Daniel  is  an 
instance  of  this. 

^35. 

MEANS   OF   LEARNING  THE   EXTINCT   HEBREW. 

I.    Historical  Materials. 

1.     The   Tradition  of  learned  Jews. 

A  knowledge  of  that  language  which  is  contained  in 
the  scanty  rehcs  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  pre- 
served, though  but  imperfectly,  by  means  of  tradition.* 
Some  time  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
Palestine  and  Babylonian  schools,  and  after  the  eleventh 
century  in  those  of  Spain,  this  tradition  was  aided  by 
the  study  of  the  Arabic  language  and  its  grammar. 
Jerome  learned  the  Hebrew  from  Jewish  scholars. 
Their  pupils  were  the  restorers  of  Hebrew  learning 
among  the  Christians  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

The  lexicographers,  grammarians,  and  commentators, 


*  Against  the  exaggerated  opinion  of  the  Ta.lmudists,  oY  Ephodiit^,  R.  ,^s- 
arias,  Elias  Levita,  Buxtorf,  Hottinger,  and  JFalton,  that  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage was  extinct  during  the  exile,  see  Jl.  Pfeiffer,  Theol.  Jud.  and  Mu- 
hara.  c.  ii.  0pp.  ii.  p.  864 ;  Loscher,  De  Causis  Ling.  Heb.  etc,  p.  67 ;  IJezel, 
Gesch.  d.  Heb.  Spr.  p.  47 ;  Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  45,  [in  Appendix,  D,]  who  rightly 
explains  Neh.  viii.  8.  But,  on  the  other  side,  see  Hmgstmberg,  Authentic  d. 
Daniel,  p.  299.  See,  also,  Neh.  xiii.  24 ;  Havernik,  p.  240 ;  Movers,  in  Bon- 
ner Zeitschrift.  xiii.  31,  sqq. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Palestine  language  in  the  time  of  Christ,  see  Pfann- 
kuche,  in  Eichhorri's  AUg.  Bib.  vol.  viii.  p.  360,  and  De  Rossi,  Delia  Lingua  di 
Christo  e  degli  Ebrei  nationali,  della  Palestina,  da  Tempi  di  Maccabei ;  Farm. 
1772,  4to. 

*  See  an  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  copiousness  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage in  Schultens,  De  Defectibus  Ling.  Heb.  §  12. 


^  S6.'\  OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  129 

—  Abulvvalid,  David  Kimchi,  Elias  Levita,  Jarchi,  Aben 
Esra,  Tanchem,  and  others,  —  preserve  this  tradition  of 
the  learned."  In  general,  it  attains  to  a  high  degree 
of  credibility,  though,  in  the  course  of  time,  much  has 
been  lost,  and  many  errors  have  been  admitted  * 


^36. 

2.    The  old   Versions. 

The  oldest  monuments  of  the  traditional,  and  in  part, 
also,  of  the  learned  philology  of  the  Jews  are  the  ancient 
versions.  Their  exegetical  as  well  as  critical  value  de- 
pends on  their  directness  and  their  age."  The  Alexan- 
drian version,  the  Syriac,  the  Arabic  of  Rabbi  Saadia 
Gaon,  the  Vulgate,  but  still  more  eminently,  the  Chaldee 
paraphrases,  often  assist  the  expositor  where  other  aid 
fails  him.  However,  in  modern  times,  too  much  im- 
portance has  often  been  attached  to  these."^ 

"  See  Gesenius,  Preface  to  his  Hebrew  Lexicon,  [translated  by  Prof. 
Eohinson,  in  Bib.  Repository,  vol,  iii.  p.  1,  sqq.] 

''  See  the  exaggerated  skepticism  of  Is.  Voss  and  R.  Simon.  Compare 
Loschcr,  De  Causis,  &c,  p.  100.  The  contempt  which  Jo.  Forster,  Bohle, 
Goussel,  and  others,  have  for  tlie  rabbins,  contrasts  very  strongly  with  the 
slavish  dependence  of  Buxtorf  and  his  school  upon  them.  Since  Michaelis 
published  his  Critical  Examination  of  the  Means  for  learning  the  extinct  He- 
bre  w  Language,  modern  skepticism  has  pronounced  but  a  moderate  judgment 
upon  them.  See  Paulus,  in  the  Neue  theol.  Journal ;  ]  796,  pt.  iii.  p.  255, 
sqq.  His  Clavis  liber  die  Psalmen,  in  the  Preface.  —  Bauer,  Harmeneutica 
Sacra,  §  14,  passes  a  correct  judgment. 

■^  [A  direct  version  is  made  directly  from  the  original ;  an  indirect  version 
from  a  previous  translation.] 

■^  See  Michaelis,  1.  c.  p.  117,  sqq.  Meyer,  Hermeneutik  der  A.  T.  vol.  i. 
p.  344.  Bauer,  1.  c.  p.  184,  sqq.  Fischer,  Proluss.  de  Verss.  Grsecis,  V.  T., 
Litterarum  Heb.  Magistris ;  Lips.  1772,  8vo.  Chr.  Fr.  Schmidt,  Diss,  duse 
Versionum  Alex.,  &c. ;  Lips.  1763, 1764,  4to.  [See  Palfrey,  1.  c.  vol.  L  lect.  i. 
Home,  I.  c.  pt  i.  ch.  iii.  §  3.] 
VOL.    I.  17 


130  ON    THE    ORIGINAL    LANGUAGF  [^  ^^• 

§37. 

II.     Philological  Materials. 
1.  Etymology.     2.    Comparison  of  the  Dialects. 

Tradition  and  authority  do  not  alone  afford  sufficient 
foundation  for  a  scientific  and  certain  knowledge  of  the 
language.  But  every  language  may  be  illustrated  by 
itself  when  some  knowledge  of  it  has  been  previously 
acquired.  Etymology  and  analogy,  therefore,  must  be 
called  to  our  aid." 

Far  more  productive,  however,  is  the  comparison  of 
the  kindred  dialects,  not  only  for  the  explanation  of 
single  and  similar  words,  —  by  restoring  radical  words 
which  have  been  lost,  and  illustrating  significations  that 
have  become  obscure  on  account  of  their  rare  occur- 
rence in  Hebrew,  —  but  also  for  the  discovery  of  explan- 
atory analogies  in  the  usage  of  the  kindred  dialects.' 
But  this  comparison  must  not  be  one-sided,  so  that  undue 
preference  is  given  to  one  dialect.  It  must  be  based  on 
the  most  certain  rules  it  is  possible  to  attain  relative  to 
the  corresponding  pronunciation  and  orthography  of  the 
cognate  words  in  these  dialects,  and  upon  a  certain 
knowledge  of  their  usage."  It  must  be  conducted  in 
general  by  the  true  spirit  of  inquiry,  and  with  just  philo- 
sophical tact,  without  any  fondness  for  hypothesis.'^ 

"  Michaelis,  1.  c.  p.  16,  sqq.  Meyer,  1.  c.  p.  131,  sqq.  See  the  Abuse  of 
Etymology,  by  Smnuel  Bohl,  xii.  Dissertt  pro  formali  Significatione  Script, 
sac.  eruenda;  Rost  1637.  Jac.  Gxisset.  Comment  Linguae  Hebr. ;  Amst. 
1702 ;  recus.  et  auct  per  C.  Clodium ;  Lips.  1743. 

*  Jl.  Schultens,  Vetus  et  regia  Via  hebraizandi ;  1738.  His  Ongines  Hebr. ; 
2d  ed.  1761.  MicJiaelis,  1.  c.  p.  154,  sqq.  [  Gesenius,  in  Bib.  Repository,  vol. 
iii.  p.  15,  sqq.] 

'  Michaelw,  1.  c.  p.  219,  sqq.  Schultens,  Clavis  dialect  in  Erpenuis,  Ru- 
dimentaLing.  Arab.;  2d  ed.  Lug.  Bat  1770,  p.  184, sqq.  Gesenuis,  Hebrew 
Lexicon,  passim. 

■^  On  the  faults  of  the  Dutch  school,  see  Michaelis,  p.  258,  sqq. ;    Gesenius, 


^38.]  THE    ORIGINAL    LANGUAGE.  131 

§  38. 

III.     Context  and  Parallel  Passages. 

But,  above  all,  he  who  inquires  into  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage must  admit  its  independence  in  respect  to  its  vo- 
cabulary and  usage,  as  well  as  in  respect  to  its  syntax 
and  the  formation  of  its  words.  All  inquiry,  therefore, 
upon  the  etymology  and  the  dialects  must  be  submitted 
to  the  general  rule  of  the  peculiar  Hebrew  usage,  which 
is  itself  to  be  made  out  from  the  context  and  the  parallel 
passages.  However,  this  maxim  has  long  been  consid- 
ered as  insufficient." 

Gesch.  der  hebr.  Sprache,  p.  128,  sqq.  Against  snatching  comparisons  out 
of  lexicons,  see  Mtchadis,  1.  c.  p.  224,  sqq.  [See  the  whole  of  Gesenius's  dis- 
sertation On  the  History  of  the  Hebrew  as  a  Dead  Language,  1.  c.  ch,  ii.] 

"  See  other  false  systems  of  investigating  the  Hebrew  language,  by  Riime- 
lin,  Casp.  JVeumann,  Von  der  Hardt,  and  others,  criticised  by  Mkhadis,  1.  c. 
p.  67,  sqq.,  and  Bauer,  1.  c.  p.  83,  sqq. 


]3i 


BOOK  II 

ON  THE  VERSIONS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


[^  39,  a. 

VALUK   OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

The  old  versions  of  the  Bible  are  equally  important 
for  the  criticism  and  the  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament. 
In  the  work  of  exegesis,  they  assist  in  the  preliminary 
work  of  exposition,  and  are  excellent  helps  to  explain  the 
Hebrew,  which  has  so  long  been  a  dead  language,  and 
which  now  survives  in  but  a  few  fragments.  In  regard 
to  criticism,  they  contain  a  rich  and  important  treasure ; 
for  the  Masora  is  not  able  to  defend  the  text  from  all 
injury,  as  history  teaches  us.  Some  versions  have  come 
down  to  us  from  a  great  antiquity  and  very  old  manu- 
scripts; they  extend  back  far  beyond  the  age  of  the 
Masora  and  the  masoretic  manuscripts.  Besides,  they 
are,  almost  without  exception,  executed  in  such  a  literal 
manner,  that  very  often  the  original  text,  which  formed 
their  basis,  can  be  deciphered  with  considerable  accu- 
racy ;  and  if  the  readings  they  follow  are  not  to  be  accept- 
ed as  genuine  because  the  Masorites  have  not  admitted 
them  into  their  critical  text,  yet  still  they  deserve  a  place 
with  the  critical  apparatus."] 

"  [See  Eichhom,  §  159.    John,  §  32,  sqq.] 


§39,  6,  c]    VERSIONS    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  133 

§  39,  b. 

CLASSIFICATION  AND   LITERATURE   OF  THE   VERSIONS. 

[They  may  be  classified  in  several  vv^ays :  according 
to  their  country,  their  language ;  into  Oriental  or  Oc- 
cidental, public  or  private  versions.  But  these  divisions 
are  sometimes  fruitless  of  results,  and  sometimes  it  is  not 
possible  to  make  them  on  account  of  our  ignorance  of 
the  external  history  of  these  versions.] " 

In  respect  to  the  exegetical  as  weW  as  the  critical  use 
of  the  versions,  the  only  convenient  division  of  them  is 
that  which  depends  on  their  antiquity  and  their  direct- 
ness or  indirectness.  But,  in  regard  to  the  language,  this 
division  may  be  modified  so  far  that  the  direct  versions 
into  any  one  language  may  be  all  classed  together.* 

[§  39,  c. 

THE   VARIOUS   CLASSES  OF  THE   VERSIONS. 
I.    Direct  Veksions. 

1.  The  Septuagint,  or  Alexandrian  version. 

2.  The  version  of  Aquila. 

3.  That  of  Symmachus. 

4.  That  of  Theodotion,  in  part. 

5 — 7.  The  three  anonymous  Greek  versions,  or  the  5, 
6,  7  eyidoaiq. 

8.  The  Greek  version  in  St.  Mark's  library  at  Venice. 

"  [See  Eichhorn,  §  159,  sqq.] 

'  On  the  versions  of  tlie  O.  T.,  see  R.  Simon,  Histoire  critique  du  Vieux 
Test  liv.  ii.  Le  Long,  Bibliotheca  sac.  ed.  Masch^  pt  ii.  vol.  i. — iii.  Walton, 
Prolegg.  ix.,  sqq.  Carpzov,  Grit.  sac.  V.  T.  vol.  ii.  p.  430,  sqq.  Rosenmiiller, 
Handbuch  fiir  der  Litt.  der  biblische  Krit  vol.  ii.  p.  277,  sqq.  vol.  iii.  Eich- 
horn, §  159—338.  Jahn,  §  33—67.  Bertholdt,  §  154—190.  Hdvernik,  vol.  i. 
pt  ii.  p.  32,  sqq.     [See  Home,  1.  c.  pt  i.  ch.  iii.  sect  3.] 


134  ON    THE    VERSIONS    OF  [^  39,  C. 

9.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 

10.  The  Samaritan  version  of  the  Pentateuch. 

11.  The  several  Chaldee  paraphrases. 

12.  The  Syriac  version  in  the  Polyglots. 

13.  Some  books  of  the  Arabic  version  in  the  polyglots. 

14.  The  Arabic,  which  follows  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch. 

15.  The  "Arabs  Erpenii"  on  the  five  books  of  Moses. 

16.  The  modern  Arabic  of  Saadias  Ben  Levi  Aske- 
noth. 

17.  The  Hebrew  version  of  the  Chaldee  passages. 

18.  Jerome's  Latin  version  from  the  Hebrew. 

II.    Indirect  Versions. 

These  are  made  from  the  Septuagint,  the  Syriac  Pe- 
shito,  the  Coptic,  Jerome's  Latin,  and  the  Vulgate. 

(I.)    From  the  Septuagint. 

1.  Theodotion's  version,  in  part. 

2.  The  greater  part  of  the  Arabic  in  the  Polyglots. 

3.  An  unprinted  Arabic  version  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
the  library  of  the  Medici. 

4.  The  Ethiopic. 

5.  The  Coptic. 

6.  The  Armenian. 

7.  Several  Syriac  versions :  —  (1.)  A  Syriac  Hexapla. 
(2.)  The  \ersio  Jigurata.  (3.)  Perhaps  the  Philoxenian. 
(4.)  The  version  of  Mar  Abba.  (5.)  The  version  of 
Jacob  of  Edessa.  (6.)  That  of  Thomas  of  Heraclea. 
(7.)  The  Greek  in  Ephraim  Syrus.  (8.)  That  of  Sim- 
eon from  the  cloister  of  St.  Licinius.  (9.)  The  versio 
Karkaphensis. 

8.  The  Itala. 

9.  The  Georgian  version.  ' 
10.  The  Anglo-Saxon. 


^  40.]  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.  135 

( II.)    From  the  Syriac  Peshito. 

1.  The  Arabic  version  of  the  Psalms,  printed  in  a 
cloister  on  Mount  Lebanon,  1610. 

2.  The  Arabic  version  of  Job  and  Chronicles  in  the 
Polyglots. 

3.  An  Arabic  Psalter  in  the  British  Museum. 

4.  A  Pentateuch,  by  Abulfaradash  Abdallah  Ben  Al- 
tayeb. 

5.  A  Syriac  Hexapla  of  Hamath  Ben  Senan. 

6.  Chaldee  version  of  Solomon's  Proverbs. 

( III.)    From  Jerome's   Version. 
A  Syriac  translation.      6  2vqoq. 

( IV.)    From  the  Coptic. 
An  Arabic  translation. 

(V.)    From  the   Vulgate. 
Several  Arabic  versions.]" 


CHAPTER   1. 

THE  GREEK   VERSIONS. 

§40. 
I.    THE   ALEXANDRIAN   VERSION;  ITS   ORIGIN. 

According  to  a  statement  in  a  pretended  letter  of 
Aristeas,*  repeated  by  Josephus,  and  extended  still  far- 

"  [See  Eichhorn,  §  160.] 

'  JlristecE,  Hist,  de  Legis.  div.  ex  Hebr.  Lingua  in  Grfficam  Translatione 
per  LXX.  Interpretes,  Grseco-Latina,  ex  Vers.  Matthim  GarMtii.  Ed.  emend, 
juxta  Exemplar.  Vatic,  ex  Recens.  Eldani  de  Parchum ;  Frcf.  1610,  8vo. 


436  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [%  40. 

ther  by  later  writers,"  the  version  of  the  Mosaic.  Law  was 
made  by  seventy- two  Palestine  Jews,  learned  in  the 
Scripture ;  it  was  made  at  the  instance  of  Demetrius 
Phalereus,  mider  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  to 
aid  in  forming  a  universal  collection  of  laws.* 

[The  story  related  by  the  Pseudo-Aristeas  is  this : 
Demetrius  Phalereus,  the  keeper  of  the  Alexandrian  li- 
brary, wished  to  make  a  collection  of  all  the  books  in  the 
world,  and  mentioned  the  Jewish  works  to  King  Ptole- 
my, who  promised  to  write  to  the  high  priest  at  Jerusa- 
lem for  interpreters  to  translate  those  books  into  the 
Greek  tongue.  Aristeas  happened  to  be  present,  and 
advised  the  king  to  set  free  the  large  number  of  Hebrews 
then  held  as  slaves  in  his  dominions.  He  did  this,  and 
sent  a  messenger  to  Eleazar,  the  high  priest  at  Jerusa- 

AristefB  Hist.  LXXII.  Interpretum.  Accessere  Veterum  Testimonia  de  eoruni 
Vers.;  Oxon.  1692,  8vo.  Also,  in  Van  Dale,  Dissert  super  Aristea  de  LXX. 
Interprett. ;  Amst.  1705,  4to.  p.  231 — 333,  and  Humphr.  Hody,  De  Biblior. 
Textibus  original. ;  Oxon.  1705,  fol.  p.  i. — xxxvi.  See  the  other  literature 
relative  to  this  epistle  in  RosenmiUler,  Handbuch,  vol.  ii.  p.  344,  sqq. 

"  Antiq.  xii.  2,  2 — 14.  On  the  slight  difference  between  this  and  Aristeas, 
see  Rosenmiiller,  1.  c.  p.  362,  sqq. 

Philo,  De  Vita  Mosis,  lib.  ii.  p.  658,  sq.,  says  these  translators  were  in- 
spired, so  that  all  agreed  in  producing  the  same  version — ivdovaiavitg  nooe- 
cp'i'lTEvoi',  ot5x  aXka  ^Xloi,  xal  ja  d'  dvjdi  tkxvteq  drduara  y.al  Qi^uaiu,  wurctQ 
ino^oXiug  Ixdaroig  doQunog  ii'7j;(ov>'To;.  (The  story  is  told  in  a  similar 
manner  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Strom,  i.  p.  342,  and  Iren<?us,  iii.  25.) 
See  Justin  Martyr,  Cohort,  ad  Grsecos,  ch.  xiii.  p.  16.  But  neither  he  nor 
Philo  refers  to  Aristeas.  Epiphanius,  De  Pond,  et  Mens.  c.  3,  6,  9—11, 
differs  widely  from  Aristeas.  See  Hody,  1.  c.  p.  8.  Rosenmiilkr,  1.  c.  p. 
370,  sqq.  On  the  origin  of  this  legend,  see  EichJwrn''s  Essay,  in  the 
Repertorium,  vol.  i.  p.  266,  sqq. 

*  Aristeas,  Josephus,  (Proem  to  Antiq.  §  3.)  Philo  and  the  Talmudists 
speak  only  of  a  translation  of  the  Law.  See  Jerome  on  Ezek.  v.  Et  Aristeas 
et  Josephus,  et  omnis  schola  Judffiorum  quinque  tantum  libros  Moysis  a  LXX. 
translatos  asserunt.  Compare  his  Qusest.  Hebr.  in  Gen.  Proem.  But  Justin, 
Clement,  Tertullian,  Epiphanius,  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  speak  of  the  whole  O. 
T.  [This  affords  an  instructive  example  of  the  growth  of  a  theological  no- 
tion by  the  addition  of  new  absurdities.] 


^40.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  137 

lem,  for  six  learned  men  out  of  each  tribe  to  serve  as 
translators  of  the  Law.  A  letter  and  costly  presents 
were  sent.  Aristeas,  the  pretended  writer  of  this  tale, 
and  Andreas,  are  sent  as  messengers.  Eleazar  returned  a 
courteous  answer,  and  sent  the  seventj-two  translators 
requested;  "all  picked  men."  Ptolemy  was  much  re- 
joiced to  see  them.  He  entertained  them  for  seven  days 
at  his  own  table,  in  a  most  splendid  manner,  and  asked 
them  seventy-two  questions  respecting  the  kingly  oftice, 
and  the  best  way  of  governing  a  state.  To  all  these 
queries  the  individuals  returned  the  most  satisfactory^  re- 
plies. Demetrius  then  conducted  them  to  a  quiet  place, 
on  the  Island  of  Pharos,  where  they  commenced  their 
work  ;  and  in  seventy-two  days  the  whole  was  com- 
pleted. It  was  copied  carefully  by  Demetrius  himself, 
and  read  to  a  large  audience,  who  stood  and  listened  out 
of  respect  to  the  sacred  books  ;  a  curse  was  then  pro- 
nounced upon  all  who  should  add  to  or  diminish  it. 
Ptolemy  dismissed  the  translators  with  praises  and  re- 
wards.]" 

It  is  now  generally  acknowledged  that  this  story  is  a 
fable.*     [It  is  surprising  that  critics  like  Usher,  Vossius, 

"  [Justin  Martyr  says  they  were  all  shut  up  in  separate  cells,  and  though 
having  no  intercourse,  yet  each  translated  the  tvhole  book  in  just  the  same  ivords 
and  letters.  Epiphanius  makes  thirty-six  cells,  the  remains  of  which  were 
visible  in  his  time.     Justin,  Cohort,  ad  Greecos.] 

''  The  first  doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  this  story  was  suggested  in  modern 
times,  by  Ludovicus  Vives,  in  a  remark  on  Augustine,  Civitas  Dei,  xviii.  42, 
and  by  /.  /.  Scaliger  in  his  notes  to  Eusebius's  Chron.  p.  133,  et  al.  These 
are  quoted  by  Buddeus,  Isagoge  Hist.  Theol.  p.  1318,  and  by  Fabricius,  Bib. 
Graec.  vol.  iii.  p.  665.  Hody  has  completely  proved  the  falsity  of  the  book  in 
his  Diss,  contra  Hist.  Aristese  de  LXX.,  in  qua  probatur,  illam  a  Judseo  aliquo 
confictam  fuisse  ad  conciliandam  Auctoritatem  Versionis  Greecse,  et  Is.  Vos- 
eii  aliorumque  Defensiones  ejusdem  Examini  subjiciuntur ;  Lond.  ]685,  8vo.; 
also  enlarged  in  his  work  De  Bibl.  Text,  origg.  lib.  i.  See,  also,  Van  Dale, 
Diss,  super  Aristea. 

This  fable  is  defended  by  Usher,  De  Grseca  LXX.  Interprett.  Vers.  S)mtag- 
VOL.    I.  18 


138  THE    GRELK    VEKSlOiNS.  [^40. 

and  VVa! ton,"  could  ever  have  believed  it  genuine  ;  for, 
not  to  mention  its  general  absurdity,  —  which  would  only 
enhance  its  value  in  some  eyes,  —  it  bears  obvious  marks 
of  its  forgery.  It  contradicts  the  account  of  Demetrius, 
as  given  by  Hermipj3as  in  Diogenes  Laertius.*  Aristeas 
professes  to  be  a  heathen  in  this  story,  and  yet  writes  as 
a  Jew.  There  were  six  translators  for  each  tribe;  but 
the  ten  tribes  had  perished  long  before.  It  is  not  prob- 
able  a  man  like   Demetrius   Phalereus  would  serve  as 


ma,  (Lond.  1G55  ;  Lips.  1695,)  Isaac  J''ossius,Y>eljXX.  Interprett.  Diss.  (Hag. 
Com.  1661,  4to. ;  see  his  Appendix  ad  Libr.  de  LXX.  Interprett.,  ibid.  1663, 
4to.,)  by  Whiston,  Authentic  Records.,  Sim.  de  Magistris,  Charles  Hayes,  and 
others,  cited  by  Masch,  Prcef.  ad  Le  Long,  pt  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  10,  sqq.,  and  Rosen- 
mtiller,  1.  c.  p.  387,  sqq.  and  378,  sqq.  Valckenaer,  De  Aristobiilo  Judajo ;  ed.  Jo. 
Luzac,  L.  B.  1806, 4to.  p.  568,  sqq.,  believes  the  main  fact  of  the  story  is  true, 
and  relies  on  the  testimony  of  Aristobulus,  cited  in  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  p.  342, 
and  Ev^ebius,  Prcep.  Ev.  ix.  6,  and  xiii.  12:  dnjoii^vevTui,  ttqo  dijuipQlnv 
iKf  iTiOutv,  -nfjb  T^c  \'i).ei,ijiv8Qov  xal  Tleqathv  inixquT/^aEO);,  7&  if  y.iau 
71^/'  l^  .■4iyv7iTQv  i^ayMyrjV  iwv  E^ntxlwv  lOtv  rjjueTiQO)V  noliribv  y.cd  fj 
TUf  yeyoPOTOti'  uti&vtmv  uviolg  inicpdyfiu  y.nl  xgdrijcng  ttj,-  /diQug  xal 
T^ij  oXrji  vouoBealn:  ene^r^yrjai:.      H  <5'   oA>;  igjur/fslu  lihv  dia  tow  vofiou 

Tulvjwv  inl  ToTi flnhndtlcfov  fiaotXiot: ^tjujjtqIov  tov  'PaXr]oio); 

TtnayuaiEVGnuivov  rd  tibqI  lovrotv.  But  liodxj,  1.  c.  p.  52,  considers  this 
very  Aristobulus  a  spurious  cliaracter  ;  so  does  Eichhorn,  AUg.  Bib.  vol.  v.  p. 
2.53,  sqq. ;  but  their  arguments  are  not  wholly  convincing.  Valckenaer,  p.  22, 
s(iq.,  regards  him  as  a  genuine  person.  See  Jlmersfoordt,  Diss,  de  variis  Lec- 
tionibus  Holmesianis  ;  Lug.  Bat.  1815,  4to.  p.  14,  sqq. 

"^  [fV(dton,  1.  c.  lib.  ix.  §  4,  p.  33U,  ed.  Dathe,  affirms  tlie  truth  of  this  ab- 
surd story.  In  hac  historia,  qria  nidla  fere  inter  JadcBos  vd  Chrtstianos  cer- 
tior  vel  illustrior,  qusdam  sunt,  de  quibus  JVeoterici  quidam,  qui  omnia  in 
dubium  revocant,  qucistionem  movent.  He  thinks  that  no  sane  man  will  reckon 
tlie  authority  of  the  JVeoterics  of  our  days  equivalent  to  the  writers  v.-lio  lived 
BO  much  nearer  the  time  of  Aristeas,  and  of  course  knew  so  much  more  of 
the  matter.] 

''  [Diogenes  Laertius,  lib.  v.  segm.  78,  vol.  i.  p.  369,  ed.  Hiibner.  Demetriua 
advised  Ptolemy  Soter  to  leave  his  crown  to  the  children  of  Eurydice,  but 
the  king  left  it  to  the  son  of  Berenice.  Then,  after  Ptolemy's  death,  it  was 
tiwarded  that  Demetrius  should  be  kept  in  custody  until  it  should  be  deter- 
mined what  must  be  done  with  him.  Upon  this,  he  became  dejected,  and  died 
from  the  sting  of  an  asp.] 


^40.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  139 

a  scribe  to  a  company  of  Jewish  translators  ;  miicli  less 
that  he,  whom  Cicero  calls  "a  most  accomplished  orator," 
would  write  a  letter  in  such  execrable  Greek  as  this 
which  pretends  to  come  from  him;  nor  is  it  less  improb- 
able that  Ptolemy  should  expend  so  large  a  sum  in  pur- 
chasinir  the  freedom  of  the  Hebrew  slaves,  and  sendins: 
presents  to  Jerusalem,  solely  for  the  sake  of  getting  a 
copy  of  the  law  of  Moses  in  the  Greek  tongue. 

The  argument  for  the  genuineness  of  this  document 
rests  chiefly  on  the  testimony  of  Josephus  and  Epipha- 
nius,  both  of  whom  cite  the  original  of  Aristeas,  but  both, 
and  particularly  the  latter,  have  altered  the  text ;  and, 
besides,  they  wrote  so  long  after  the  alleged  date  of  the 
original,  that  their  testimony  has  no  authority  to  deter- 
mine the  point.  The  passage  in  Eusebius  is  of  little 
value.  "Before  the  time  of  Demetrius  [Phalereus,]  be- 
fore the  dominion  of  Alexander  and  the  Persians,  part  of 
our  holy  books  were  translated,  namely,  those  which  relate 
the  departure  of  our  Hebrew  nation  out  of  Egypt,  and 
an  account  of  all  the  wonderful  things  that  happened  to 
them — the  conquest  of  the  land,  and  the  reception  of  the 
Law.  But  the  whole  translation  of  all  that  relates  to 
the  Law  was  made  under  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  —  De- 
metrius Phalereus  taking  charge  of  the  whole  matter."" 

It  seems  probable  that  this  fable  of  Aristeas  was  writ- 
ten by  a  Palestine  Jew,  who  wished  to  exalt  the  honor 
of  the  Law,  and  of  his  native  land.  But  his  fiction  is  so 
clumsily  executed  that  the  imposture  is  seen  through  on 
all  sides.  Philo,  an  Egyptian  Jew,  knew  nothing  of  this 
treatise ;  but  Josephus  cites  it  as  w^ell  known  and  au- 
thentic] 

It  is  possible  that  this  fable  may  contain  somewhat 

»  [Prsep.  Ev.  ix.  6.    xiii.  12.] 


140  THE  r.RcrK   vrrpions.  [^40. 

that  is  true  respecting  the  occasion  and  date  ol"  this  ver- 
sion ;  but,  in  the  main  point,  that  learned  Palestine  Jews 
were  its  authors,  it  is  refuted  bj  the  character  of  the 
version  itself.  This  remains  the  most  certain,  that  it 
was  made  by  Alexandrian  Jews,  who  were  induced  to 
undertake  it  by  the  want  of  such  a  version. 

[Eichhorn  indulges  in  the  following  account  of  the 
origin  of  this  version,  which,  in  the  midst  of  many  con- 
jectures, may  contain  much  that  is  true.  After  the  death 
of  Alexander  the  Great,  the  Jews  whom  he  had  con- 
ducted to  Egypt,  remained  there  in  great  numbers,  es- 
pecially at  Alexandria.  They  enjoyed  their  ancient 
usages  and  laws.  They  had  synagogues,  and  probably 
a  Sanhedrim.  A  knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  soon  lost, 
and  a  version  in  the  A'^ernacular  tongue  became  needed. 
Both  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  claim  the  honor  of 
making  the  translation.  But,  at  this  distance  of  time,  it 
is  not  possible  to  determine,  by  historical  testimony, 
which  party  effected  what  both  desired  to  accomplish. 
However,  since  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  had  such  a 
cordial  hatred  for  one  another  at  that  time,  it  is  plain 
each  party  would  only  translate  from  its  own  manu- 
scripts of  the  Scriptures.  Now,  the  Alexandrian  version 
of  the  Pentateuch  agrees  with  the  Samaritan  copy,  in  a 
multitude  of  passages,  much  better  than  with  the  He- 
brews From  this  and  other  considerations,  it  would 
seem  most  probable  that  a  Samaritan  manuscript  was  at 
the  basis  of  the  version.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
are  passages  which  agree  with  the  Hebrew,  but  not 
with  the  Samaritan.  It  is  the  conjecture  of  some  schol- 
ars, that  the  version  was  originally  made  by  Samaritans, 
and  afterwards  partially  corrected  by  the  Jews.  Per- 
haps it  was  revised  and  improved  by  the  Egyptian  San- 


^40.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  141 

hedrim,  of  seventy-two  members,  and  thus  a  foundation 
laid  for  the  story  of  Aristeas. 

But  this  is  purely  conjecture;  and,  besides,  the  agree- 
ment between  this  version  and  the  Samaritan  codex, 
where  it  has  peculiar  readings,  is  not  so  striking  or  im- 
portant as  Eichhorn  alleges,  and  may  be  accounted  for 
on  the  hypothesis  that  the  ancient  Hebrew  text  from 
which  this  Greek  version  was  made,  was  free  from  some 
of  the  errors  of  the  present  Hebrew  text,  which  are  not 
found  in  the  Samaritan  codex  at  this  day." 

Ptolemy  Soter  made  a  large  collection  of  Greek  books 
at  Alexandria ;  his  successor,  Philadelphus,  enlarged  it. 
From  the  epilogue  to  the  Greek  version  of  Esther,  we 
see  that  was  made  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philomater;* 
and,  from  this  fact,  it  seems  probable  the  other  books 
were  already  in  the  hands  of  the  Ptolemies.  Plutarch 
relates  that  Demetrius  Phalereus  had  advised  Ptolemy 
Soter  to  make  a  collection  of  all  the  writings  of  law- 
givers and  statesmen,  of  course  including  the  works  of 
Moses.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  iElian, 
who  says,  Demetrius,  in  company  with  Ptolemy,  worked 
upon  a  code  of  laws  for  the  Egyptians.'^  He  would  nat- 
urally apply  to  the  Sanhedrim  at  Jerusalem  or  Egypt  for 
a  copy  of  these  laws.  Now,  if  there  were  a  translation 
already  made,  it  would  probably  come  into  his  hands  ; 
but  if  there  were  none,  the  Sanhedrim  would  probably 
permit  one  to  be  made,  or  appoint  competent  men  to 
make  it.  The  version  might  well  enough  be  called  that 
of  the  Seventy,  or  the  Seventy-two  —  the    number  of 


"  [See  below,  §63.] 

*  [Here  Eichhorn  seems  to  overrate  the  statement  in  the  epilogue.     See 
below,  §  41.] 

"  [Plutarch,  in  Apothegmatibus  Regum.     JElian,  V.  H.  iii.  17.] 


142  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^  40. 

members  in  the  Sanhedrim.  This  conjecture  is,  in 
some  measure,  confirmed  by  the  statement  of  the  Tal- 
mud, that  five  Jews  were  appointed  to  collect  the 
fragmentary  versions  of  the  Law  into  one  whole,  to  re- 
vise and  complete  the  work."  This  was,  perhaps,  begun 
under  Ptolemy  Soter,  and  completed  under  Philadel- 
phus.]* 

On  the  authority  of  some  ancient  writers,  —  of  Clem- 
ent, Irenseus,  and  Eusebius,  who  date  this  version  from 
the  time  of  Ptolemy  Soter,  —  Hody  places  it  in  the  Joint 
administration  of  Ptolemy  Soter  and  Philadelphus,  about 
286  or  285  B.  C 

The  opinion  that  there  was  an  earlier  fragmentary 
version,  —  made  for  the  use  of  the  synagogues, — which 

"  [Tract.  Sopherim.  i.  §  7,  cited  in  Bcrtholdt,  §  157.  Buddeus,  Isagoge, 
p.  1321.] 

'  [See  Eichhorn,  §  163.  Bertholdt,  §  157.]  Eiclihorn,  Jahn,  Bertholdt, 
and  Havernik  build  too  much  on  the  account  in  Plutarch's  Apothegms: 
^tjfir'lTQiog  6  iJiakrjQEvg  ThoXefiuta  tw  ^uaiXfX  nuQr^i'ei,  jci  neql  ^uatleiag 
nal  7^yeuofl(tc  (^iSXlu  xtaaduL  y.ul  uruytvioaxei)''  u  yct^  ol  cpiXoi  rote  ^aai- 
levaii'  ov  i)^uu(>ovai  Traoutrelr,  javra  iv  jo^g  ^i[SUoig  yiyquTtTut.  Hug, 
De  Pentat.  Vers.  Alex.  1818, 4to.,  relies  mainly  on  the  passage  in  ^Elian,  iii. 

17:    ^ijurijoiog ef  Jtiyvma  avt'iip  iQ  nTolej.iul(ji  vo/uo6ealag  rjQ^e. 

Hody,  1.  c.  ii.  3,  p.  97,  is  still  more  rigid,  and  denies  tJiat  Demetrius  has  any 
claim  to  a  share  in  producing  this  version.  His  decision  has  the  more 
weight  when  we  consider  how  little  the  Greeks  knew  of  the  Law  of  Moses. 
No  conjecture  like  tliat  of  Eichhorn  above  can  rest  on  the  number  seventy- 
two,  for  it  was  a  common  sacred  number.  Hody,  1.  c.  p.  123.  HoUinger,  1.  c. 
p.  290.  Besides,  the  existence  of  a  Sanhedrim  in  Egypt  is  doubtful.  Lnght- 
foot,  Hor.  Heb.  on  Acts  ix.  [But  he  merely  suggests  a  doubt  without  offering 
reasons  for  his  opinion.]  Attempts  have  sometimes  been  made  to  unite  all 
these  views.  See  Leusden,  Philol.  Heb.  mixt.  c.  15.  R.  Simon,  Disquis. 
crit.  ch.  15.     Bertholdt,  p.  525,  sqq.     Carpzov,  Grit.  sac.  p.  491. 

*•'  Hody,  p.  97.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  p.  341.  IreneBus,  Hseres.  iii.  25. 
Ei(^e.hiiis,  Hist  Eccl.  v.  8.  Hody's  conclusion  rests  on  different  grounds 
from  that  of  Bertholdt,  (p.  524,)  who  follows  Gerhard  Voss,  and  attempts  to 
unite  the  story  of  Aristeas  with  that  of  Hermippus  in  Diogenes  Laertius, 
See  Hody,  p.  570,  and  Vakkenaei;  1.  c.  p.  64.  He  thinks  the  claim  of  Aristo- 
bulus  is  nn  emp*y  rhodomontade. 


^40.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIOiN'S.  143 

lay  at  the  basis  of  the  new  version,  is  highly  probable. 
[According  to  the  story  of  Aristobulus,  there  was  a 
Greek  version  of  the  Pentateuch  before  the  time  of  the 
Persians.  One  writer  thinks  it  was  made  in  the  time 
of  Amasis,  contemporary  with  Solon  ;  another  declares 
it  is  older  than  Homer  and  Hesiod ;  "  for  they  drew 
from  the  Jewish  Scriptures."  Aristobulus,  however,  as 
w^ell  as  later  writers,  had  a  special  interest  in  proving 
the  Greek  philosophers  were  indebted  to  the  Jews  for 
all  their  divine  wisdom,  and  therelbre  invents  the  fable." 
But  this  original  version  was  unknown  to  Josephus, 
Philo,  or  even  Aristeas.  Walton  cites  the  authorities* 
who  believe  in  the  earlier  version.  But  most  of  them 
rely  chiefly  on  the  authority  of  Aristobulus,  or  adopt  this 
opinion  to  account  for  the  "  divine  wisdom "  of  the 
Greeks.  Walton  himself  thinks  the  Seventy  made  the 
earliest  version ;  but  still  there  is  godd  reason  to  believe 
in  the  existence  of  a  previous  fragmentary  translation. 

There  is  a  fabulous  story  in  Abul  Phatach's  Samari- 
tan Chronicle  respecting  the  Alexandrian  version,  as 
follows  :  "  In  the  tenth  year  of  his  reign,  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus  directed  his  attention  to  the  contradictions  be- 
tween the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews  respecting  the  Law  ; 

"  [It  is  not  necessary  to  show,  at  this  day,  that  the  philosophers  borrowed 
nothing  from  the  writings  of  the  Jews,  though  the  old  claim  is  now  and  then 
made  by  the  ignorant  Augustine,  Civitat  Dei,  viii.  11,  says  that  Plato,  in 
his  journey  to  Egypt,  could  not  have  seen  Jeremiah,  as  some  pretended,  for 
he  had  been  dead  a  long  time  ;  neither  could  he  have  read  the  Scriptures,  for 
they  were  not  translated  into  Greek.  However,  he  thinks  Plato  may  have 
learned  something  from  conversing  with  the  Jews,  and  Origen  (cont  Cels. 
lib.  vi.)  is  of  the  same  opinion.  See  Justin  Martyr,  Cohort  ad  Griecos,  ch. 
30,  29,  22.  Apol.  i.  p.  70,  a,  p.  78,  a,  &c.  Josephus,  cont  Ap.  2.  Com- 
pare Augustine,  De  Doctrma  Christ  ii.  28,  with  Retract  ii.  4.  See  tlie  nu- 
merous passages  of  the  Fathers  that  derive  the  Greek  wisdom  from  the 
Hebrews,  collected  in  Fabridus,  Bib.  Greeca,  ed.  Harles,  vol.  iii.  p.  148,  sqq.] 

*  [Prolegg.  lib.  ix.  c.  6.] 


144  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^'^l* 

for  the  Samaritans  refused  to  receive  any  of  the  pretend- 
ed writings  of  the  prophets,  except  the  Law.  To  in- 
form himself  on  this  point,  the  king  sent  for  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritans,  and  desired  to  hear  the  elders  ot 
both  parties  in  this  controversy.  Osar  came  to  Alex- 
andria on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  Aaron  on  that  of  the 
Samaritans,  each  attended  with  several  assistants. 
Quarters  were  assigned  them,  with  directions  to  re- 
main separate  from  one  another ;  a  Greek  servant  was 
appointed  to  each  person,  to  write  down  the  expected 
translation.  In  this  way  the  Samaritans  translated  the 
Law  and  the  other  books.  Ptolemy  examined  it,  and 
was  satisfied  that  the  Law,  as  the  Samaritans  possessed 
it,  contained  matter  not  to  be  found  in  the  Jewish  copy, 
and  that  their  text  was  purer  than  that  of  the  Jews." 
The  Samaritans  say  the  world  was  darkened  for  three 
days  after  the  version  was  made.]" 

§41. 

ALEXANDRIAN   VERSION   CONTINUED. 

It  is  probable  in  itself  that  this  version  was  not  made 
all  at  once,  and  by  the  same  hand.  The  suspicion  of 
different  authors  and  times  is  confirmed  by  tradition,  and 
by  the  unequal  character  of  the  version  itself.* 

"  [See  the  account  of  this  work  in  Paulms  New  Rep.  vol.  ii.  p.  117,  sqq., 
and  Eichhorn,  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  iii.  p.  312,  sqq.]  On  the  origin  of  the  Samari- 
tan Alexandrian  version,  see  Carpzov,  1.  c.  p.  483,  sqq.  Le  Long,  Bibliothe- 
ca,  ed.  Masch,  pt  ii.  p.  216.  Fabi-idus,  Bib.  Graeca,  ed.  Harles,  vol.  iii.  p 
658,  sqq.  Sender,  Vorbereit.  zur  Hermeneut  vol.  ii.  p.  317.  Miicke,  De  orig. 
Vers,  septuagintaviralis  ;  Ziillich,  1789.  Mori,  Acroases  super  Hermeneut. 
N.  T.  ed.  Eichstadt,  vol.  ii.  p.  50,  sqq. 

'  All  the  moderns  after  Hody  are  of  this  opinion.  Vcdckenaer  takes  the 
other  side,  and  relies  on  Josephus,  Antiq.  Proem.  §  3.  See  Amersfoordt,  1.  c. 
p.  17. 


^41.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIOxNS.  145 

The  Pentateuch  was  first  translated,"  and  IVom  tiint; 
to  time  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  the 
date  of  the  translation  of  particular  books  cannot  be  de- 
termined.* 

[It  is  plain  this  version  was  made  at  different  times,  and 
by  several  hands.  Eichhorn  thinks  the  book  of  Joshua 
was  not  translated  earlier  than  277  B.  C,  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  a  Gallic  word  (j'aLOog)  occurs  in  Josh, 
viii.  18,  and  the  Gauls  did  not  make  their  irruption  into 
Greece  and  Asia  till  the  above  date.  From  the  use  of 
the  word  in  the  Roman  writers,  its  Gallic  descent  is  ap- 
parent. After  the  defeat  of  Brennus,  the  Gauls  were 
scattered  in  various  directions ;  Ptolemy  Philadelphus 
had  a  large  body  of  them  in  his  service,  and  thus  the 
word  may  easily  have  become  prevalent  at  Alexandria  in 
his  time.''  The  book  of  Esther  seems  to  have  been 
translated  in  the  reign  of  Philometer."^  Job  was  not 
translated  by  the  same  writer  as  the  other  books ;  for  the 
epilogue  informs  us,  "  It  is  translated  out  of  the  Syri- 
ac,"  that  is,  the  Hebrew.^     The  diversity  of  authors 


"■  Valcktnaer,  p.  61,  in  explaining  the  words  of  Aristobulus,  tui'  dia  tov 
vuftov  Tiuvxwv,  as  referring  to  the  whole  of  the  O.  T.,  may  be  nearer  the 
truth  than  Hody,  p.  168,  who  limits  them  to  the  Pentateuch.  See  A.  L.  Z. 
1816,  No.  3,  p.  18. 

''  See  Usserius,  De  LXX.  Interprett.  p.  22.  Hod]),  p.  178.  Eichhorn,  §  164. 
On  the  other  side,  Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  153.  The  epilogue  to  the  book  of  Esther 
says  nothing  of  the  time  of  the  translation,  and  as  little  of  its  delivery  to  the 
king,  as  Eichhorn  supposes,  1.  c.  See  Valckenaer,  p.  63.  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib. 
vol.  iv.  p.  30.  And  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  vol.  i.  p.  142,  says,  Daniel  was  first  trans- 
lated after  the  birth  of  Christ ;  but  he  gives  no  satisfactory  proof. 

"  [See  this  whole  subject  treated  with  a  profusion  of  learning  by  Hody, 
1.  c.  p.  178,  sqq.] 

•^  [See  above,  §  40,  and  the  LXX.  version  of  Esther,  ch.  x.  43 — 47.] 

'  [However,  the  epilogue  itself  is  in  part  modern ;  at  least  one  clause  of  it 
comes  from  a  Christian  hand ;  for,  ver.  18,  it  reads,  "  And  it  is  written  that 
he  (Job)  shall  rise  again  with  those  whom  the  Lord  shall  raise."] 
VOL.  I.  19 


146  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^  42. 

appears  from  the  different  character  of  different  parts  of 
this  version,  and  from  the  various  expressions  by  which 
the  same  Hebrew  word  is  translated  in  different  places.]  " 
All  we  can  determine  with  any  certainty  is  this,  —  that 
the  whole,  or  the  greater  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  was 
extant  in  the  Greek  language  in  the  time  of  Jesus  the 
Son  of  Sirach.  [Sirach  presupposes  that  "the  Law  and 
the  Prophets,  and  the  rest  of"  the  books,"  were  already 
extant  in  his  time  ;  that  is,  in  the  38th  year,  which  is 
probably  the  38th  year  of  Evergetes  II.,''  about  130  B.  C] 


§42. 

CHARACTER  OF  THE   ALEXANDRIAN   VERSION. 

The  Egyptian  origin  of  this  version  is  proved  by  the 
use  of  expressions  peculiar  to  Egypt,  and  by  its  de- 
parture from  the  accuracy  of  the  Palestine  Jews  in  criti- 

"  [The  following  are  instances: — JVames  of  persons,  Slc:     b'^tiffib-?    is 

rendered  (pvlioxel^,  in  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  but  in  all  other  places,  tiA- 
'K6cpvlov:  GexwI,  '_-4i'of0w(9;,  &c.  in  Chronicles  ;  in  Samuel,  QexwUrjg/.^radoi- 
dlirjQ,  &c. :  Paa  in  Job  is  Aqufi  in  Ruth  and  Chronicles:  ASotvla,  1  Chroni- 
cles; O^vla,  2  Samuel;  Adavin,  Nehemiah ;  Adovlag,  ]  Kings  and 
2  Chronicles :  BrjQuaBfi  is  cpQht:  tov  oqxov.  —  Animals  and  plants : 
Jn^~Duj  'EQd'xhog  in  Leviticus,  niXexuv  in   Deuteronomy,    enoip  in    Zacha- 

riah:    ji^st     is  rendered    rsQi.^ifdo;,    Sqv;,   divdgov    avaxtor,    &c. :    T'n!>^ 

is  rendered  nvnuQlaaos  in  Job,  in  Ezekiel,  sometimes  xiSQo;  and 
sometimes  xonaqtaaoc,  while  in  the  other  books  it  is  always  xidQog. 
Other  words :  tt^^'^iH ,  difiliaaig  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  d>\Xol  in  Num- 
bers, Deuteronomy,  and  Samuel,  and  qtMTl^ovTFg  in  Ezra.  Psalm  xviii.  oc- 
curs in  2  Samuel  xxii.,  but  the  two  have  been  translated  by  diiferent 
hands.  Genesis  and  Exodus  did  not  proceed  from  the  same  pen  with 
Deuteronomy.  Perhaps  some  of  these  errors  are  the  result  of  inaccurate 
transcription,  but  certainly  not  all.  See  a  full  account  of  the  different 
renderings  in  the  LXX.  in  Hody,  ubi  sup.  p.  203 — 216.] 

*   Usher,  1.  c.  p.  1.  Hody,  1.  c,  p.  192,  sqq.     Eichhnrn,  Einleit.  in  d.  Apokry- 
phen,  p.  40,  sqq. 


^42.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  147 

cism  and  exegesis,  and  by  its  variation  from  the  received 
text." 

As  a  whole,  this  version  is  chargeable  with  want  of 
literalness,  and  also  with  an  arbitrary  method,  whereby 
something  foreign  to  the  text  is  brought  in.  In  general, 
it  betrays  the  want  of  an  accurate  acquaintance  with 
the  Hebrew  language,  though  it  furnishes  many  good 
explanations.* 

[The  versions  of  separate  books  differ  from  one  another 
in  the  translation  of  separate  expressions,  as  well  as  in 
their  general  character.  The  translation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  the  most  excellent.''  The  first  place,  says  Eich- 
horn,  must  be  assigned  to  the  Pentateuch.  The  author 
of  it  was  familiar  with  the  language  and  with  the  sub- 

"  Egyptian  ivords :  IIuaioffiOQnov ,  ugrd^jj,  i'3ig,  C(/^,  rofiog.  Isa.  xix.  2. 
Usher,  1.  c.  ch.  i.  p.  24,  sqq.  Hody,  1.  c.  p.  115,  sqq.  Gesenius,  Com. 
iiber  Jes.  vol.  i.  p.  60.  His  Geschichte  der  heb.  Sprache,  p.  77.  [There  are 
numerous  instances  of  the  use  of  an  Egyptian  word  —  which  is  sometimes  a 
local  term  —  as  an  adequate  expression  for  the  Hebrew.  Thus,  for  example, 
tlie  first  book  is  called  The  Generation,  [rivsaic,]  but  it  would  be  moro 
properly  called  The  Formation,  (Krlaig,)  but  the  Egyptian  philosophers 
were  wont  to  speak  of  the  Generation  of  the  world.  In  Amos  v.  26,  tlie 
Hebrew    "^ii::,  Saturn,  is  rendered   PecfUf,   the    Egyptian    name    of  the 

same  deity  whom  the  Greeks  called  Koovog.  The  Hebrew  measure,  tlie 
homer,    ^J^irijis  translated  (i^T(i5«c  £?,  though  the  artab  was  an  Egyptian, 

and  not  a  Greek  measure.  The  same  Avord  occurs  also  in  Bel  and  the 
Dragon,    ^sjf  3 ,  which  means  a  rush,  in  general   is  rendered  ndnvnog,  the 

rush  of  Egypt.    n'^'^N  i  the  ephah,  is  rendered  dicpol,  which  is  still  a  Coptic 

word.  The  Urim  and  Thummim,  on  the  breastplate  of  the  high  priest,  are 
called  'JlrfiEiu,  Truth,  because  the  Egyptian  priest  wore  an  image  called 
Truth.  The  east  wind,  in  Ex.  x.  15,  —  said  to  bring  the  grasshoppers 
(quaere  mosquitoes)  —  is  translated  soxith  ivind,  which  brings  them  to  Egypt. 
See  Hody,  1.  c.  p.  113,  sqq.  See,  also,  Dahne,  Geschichtliclie  Darstellung  d. 
jiid.  alexand.  Religions-Philosophie,  vol.  ii.  p.  1,  sqq.] 

''  See  the  exaggerated  estimation  of  this  version  by  Is.  Vossius,  De  LXX. 
Interprett.  c.  i.  p.  30.  But  see,  also,  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  505,  sqq.  Hot- 
tinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  352,  sqq. 

'  Hody,  p.  224,  sqq.  Lex.  Heb.  ad  Origen.  Hexap.  ed.  Montfaucon,  vol, 
ii.  p.  401,  sqq.     Gesenius,  Coram,  p.  56,  sq. 


148  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [§42. 

jects  treated  of  in  these  books.  "  The  next  place  must 
be  given  to  the  translator  of  the  Proverbs.  His  work 
proceeds  not  in  the  stiff  gait  of  a  dictionary,  for  he  had 
both  languages  at  command.  Often  he  expresses  merely 
the  sense  of  the  original,  but  when  he  misses  that,  you 
recognize  his  genius  even  in  his  mistakes.  Job  was 
translated  by  a  man  fired  with  the  true  poetic  spirit,  and 
well  read  in  the  Greek  poets  ;  but  he  had  too  little  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Hebrew,  and  too  little  learning, 
which  the  translator  and  expounder  of  Job  can  by  no 
means  dispense  with.  The  Psalms  and  Prophets  were 
defiled  by  men  without  feeling  or  poetic  spirit.  The 
translation  of  Daniel  is  so  bad,  that  the  ancient  church 
gave  the  preference  to  Theodotion's  version  of  this 
prophet,  though  it  adopted  all  the  other  books  of  the 
Seventy.""  Ecclesiastes  is  translated  more  literally  than 
the  other  books,  says  Jahn.] 

In  the  books  of  Esther  and  Daniel,  the  translator  per- 
formed in  part  the  office  of  a  recensor,  and  permitted  him- 
self to  depart  from  the  text.  We  notice  omissions  and  ab- 
breviations on  the  one  hand,  additions  and  interpolations 
on  the  other.  Chapters  are  sometimes  transposed.*  In 
Job  and  the  Proverbs,  we  find  departures  from  the  pres- 
ent text,  which  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  imperfection 
of  the  copy  made  use  of,  or  to  the  caprice  of  the  trans- 
lator, or  both."      In  the  Pentateuch,  the  version  rests  on  a 

"  [See  Eichhoni,  §  165.  The  peculiarities  of  some  of  these  books  are 
distinctly  marked;  e.  g.,  in  Judges,  Ruth,  and  Kings,  the  word  elat,  is  often 
redundant  after  iyw:  Jud.  v.  3,  aaofmi  iyio  elfu  tc5  xvgla.  See  Bos,  Prolegg. 
in  LXX.,  ch.  i.  p.  2,  sqq.  Jerome,  Prsef.  in  Daniel,  testifies  to  the  character  of 
the  version  of  that  prophet.  Danielem  juxta  LXX.  interpretis  Domini  Salva- 
toris  ecclesite  non  legunt,  utentes  Theodotionis  editione,  et  cur  hoc  acce- 

derit  nescio hoc  unum  affirmare  oossum,  quod  niultum  a  veritate  dis- 

cordet,  et  recto  judicio  rcpudiatus  sit.] 

<-  See  below,  §  200,  258. 

'  See  Ziegler,  Uebersetzung  der  Sprijchwbrter,  p.  52. 


§  43.J  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  149 

recension  of  the  text,  Avliich  is  distinguished  bj  exphm- 
atory  readings.  Jeremiah  is  from  a  recension  that  is 
more  free  from  additions." 


§43. 

IMPORTANCE  AND   USE   OF  THIS   VERSION. 

The  high  esteem  in  which  this  version  was  held  by 
the  Hellenists  is  apparent  from  the  fables  respecting  its 
origin,  and  their  belief  in  its  inspiration.  But  the  Pales- 
tine Jews  likewise  entertained  these  opinions.* 

The  Septuagint  version  of  the  Law  was  read  in  the 
synagogue  not  only  by  the  Hellenists,'  but  perhaps  also 

''  See  below,  §  217,  218. 

On  the  agreement  between  the  LXX.  and  the  Samaritan  text,  see  Animad- 
verss.  Samarit.  in  Textum  Heb.  et  Samarit.  in  Polyglott.  Lond.  vi.  19.  Hot- 
tinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  294,  sqq. 

For  the  hypotliesis  that  this  version  was  made  directly  from  Samaritan 
MSS.,  see  Hottinger,  1.  c.  p.  301,  sqq.  Posldlus,  Tab.  Ling.  T.  ii.  J.  M. 
Hassencamp,  Diss,  de  Pentateucho  LXX.  Interprett.  Grfeco  non  ex  Hebraso, 
sed  Samaritano  Textu  converso ;  Marb.  1765,  4to.  His  Entdeckter  wahrer 
Ursprung  der  alt.  Bibellibers. ;  Mind.  1775,  p.  211,  sqq.  Eichhorn,  §  388.  [See 
above,  §  40.]  The  chief  arguments  in  favor  of  this  hypothesis  are  derived 
from  Jerome's  account,  Prsf.  ad  Libros  Regum,  and  from  Oiigeii,  in  Mont- 
faucon's  Diss.  prEelim.  ad  Hexaplam,  vol.  i.  p.  8G ;  from  Jerome,  Ep.  136,  ad 
Marcellam,  and  from  the  pretended  confusion  of  letters  that  are  similar  in 
the  Samaritan  alphabet.  See  Geseiiius,  Gesch.  der  Hebr.  Sprache,  p.  176. 
Comment,  de  Pentat.  Samarit.  p.  11,  sqq.  Jahn  is  opposed  to  this  supposi- 
tion, vol.  i.  p.  156,  sq. 

Some  think  there  were  interpolations  in  the  MSS.  See  R.  Asanah,  Meor 
Enaim,  fol.  49,  col.  1,  in  Hottinger,  1.  c.  p.  301.  Uslier,  1.  c.  p.  215.  Seb.  Ran, 
Exercitatt.  ad  Hubigant.  Prolegg.  p.  132,  sqq.  See  the  true  view  in  Gese- 
nius,  De  Pentat.  Samarit.  p.  14,  sqq.     See  Jimers/oordt,  1.  c.  p.  60,  sqq. 

For  the  hypothesis  that  this  and  the  other  Greek  versions  were  made  from 
Hebrew  MSS.  written  in  Greek  characters,  see  Tychsen,  Tentamen  de 
variis  Codd.  Heb.  V.  T. ;  Rost.  1772,  p.  66,  sqq.  Le  Long,  1.  c.  pt  ii.  vol.  ii. 
p.  54,  sqq. 

<-  Hieros.  Megilla,  fol.  62,  col.  4.  Babyl.  Megilla,  fol.  9.  Tr.  Sopher.  col. 
1.    Morinus,  Exercitatt.  Bib.  lib.  i.  Exercitatt.  8,  ch.  1,  p.  180,  sqq. 

"  TerluUian,  Apol.  ch.  18,  says,  "The  Jews  read  it  openly."     Justin  Mar- 


150  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^43. 

by  the  Palestine  Jews."  Josephus  makes  more  use  of  it 
than  of  the  Hebrew  text.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  it  subsequently  became  suspicious 
to  the  Jews,  on  account  of  the  controversy  between  them 
and  the  Christians."  In  this  way  we  can  explain  the 
hostility  of  the  Talmud  towards  it.''     [The  controversy 

tyr,  Apol.  i.  31,  p.  62,  and  Dial,  cum  Tryphone,  ch.  72,  p.  170.  [In  tlie  latter 
place,  Justin  charges  the  Jews  with  removing  many  passages  from  the  LXX., 
which  relate  to  the  suffering  of  Christ  He  mentions  several  passages,  and 
adds  that  a  paragrapli  omitted  in  Jeremiah  was  still  extant  in  some  copies  that 
are  kept  in  Hue  synagogues  of  the  Jews.]  See,  also,  Jitstinian^s  Novella,  146, 
[where  he  permits  the  version  of  Aquila  to  be  used  by  such  as  disliked  the 
LXX.,  but  forbids  the  reading  of  the  Mishna.]  See  Hody,  p.  224,  sqq.  Carp- 
201),  Crit.  sac.  p.  522,  sqq.     Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  162. 

"  The  proof  of  tliis  may  be  found  in  Hieros.  Sota,  fol.  21,  col.  2,  cited  in 
Buxlorfs  Lexicon  Talmud,  p.  104:  "Rabbi  Levi  went  to  CfBsarea,  and 
hearing  them  read  the  lesson,  '  Hear,  O  Israel,'  Deut.  vi.,  in  Hellenistic, 
wished  to  prevent  them  ;  but  Rabbi  Joshua,  perceiving  it,  was  angry,  and  said, 
'  If  a  man  cannot  read  Hebrew,  shall  lie  not  read  at  all  ?  Let  every  man 
read  in  that  language  he  understands,  and  thus  fulfil  his  office.'  "  [But  it  is 
thought  by  some  that  this  passage  relates  merely  to  tliat  paragraph  M'hich 
was  recited  or  read  at  evening  prayers.]  See  Lightfoot,  on  Acts  vi.  1,  and 
Hody,  p.  227,  who  understand  it  as  relating  merely  to  the  Keri,  Hear,  O 
Israel.     [The  former  denies  that  the  LXX.  was  generally  used  by  the  Jews.] 

''  Spittler,  De  Usu  Vers.  Alex,  apud  Josephum ;  Gott.  1779.  ScharJ'enherg, 
De  Josephi  et  Vers.  Alex.  Consensu  ;  Lips.  1780.  Compare  Emesti,  Opus- 
cula  phil.  crit ;  ed.  2d,  Lug.  Bat  1776,  p.  363.  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  v.  p. 
221,  vol.  vii.  p.  189.  Gesenius,  Geschichte  der  Heb.  Sprache,  p.  80.  Rein- 
hard,  De  Vers.  Alex.,  in  his  Opuscula,  ed.  Politz,  vol.  i.  p.  36.  He  thinks 
the  high  esteem  for  the  LXX.  was  limited  to  the  Christians. 

"  The  first  trace  of  this  controversy  between  the  Jews  and  the  Christians 
in  relation  to  the  LXX.  is  found  in  Justin,  Dial,  cum  Tryphone,  1.  c.  On  the 
other  hand,  Philo,  De  Vita  Mosis,  vol.  ii.  p.  510,  believes  in  the  agreement 
of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew.     See  Hody,  p.  2.33. 

''■  It  is  said  in  Megilla  Taanith,  fol.  50,  col.  2,  (ed.  Basil,  1578,)  that  there 
was  a  fast  on  the  8th  day  of  the  month  Tebet,  "  because  on  that  day,  in  the 
time  of  King  Ptolemy,  the  haw  loas  tvritten  in  Cheek,  and  darkness  came,  upon 
the  ivorld  for  three  days.^^  Again,  in  Tract  Sopherim,  ch.  1,  tliis  version  is 
called  "  the  work  of  the  five  elders,  who  wrote  the  Law  in  Greek,  in  the 
time  of  King  Ptolemy.  That  teas  a  sad  day  for  Israel,  like  the  day  when  the 
calf  was  made."  [But  there  is  little  reason  to  believe  such  a  fast  was  ever 
kept]  See  Hody,  p.  220,  sqq.  JVolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  443.  Hottinger, 
Thes.  Phil.  p.  336.     Carpzov,  1.  c.  p.  524,  sqq. 


^  44,  rt.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  lol 

respecting  the  authority  of  this  version  did  not  com- 
mence till  the  second  century  A.  C.  Previous  to  this 
date,  both  the  Jews  and  Christians  seem  to  revere  it  as 
of  nearly  equal  value  with  the  "  Hebrew  verity  "  itself. 
Philo  and  Josephus  had  used  it  with  no  scruple.  The 
Jews  were  finally  led  to  detest  it,  from  the  fact  that  the 
Christians,  in  controversy  with  them,  appealed  to  this. 
The  Jews  then  retreated  to  the  Hebre'w  text,  that  they 
might  reply  to  the  argument  of  their  adversaries  ;  and,  in 
comparing  the  original  with  the  translation  more  care- 
fully than  before,  they  found  additions  and  alterations  in 
the  latter  which  led  them  to  reject  it.  Even  the  Helle- 
nists began  to  despise  it,  in  the  second  century.  Besides, 
most  of  the  Christians  before  Jerome  were  ignorant  of 
Hebrew ;  the  Jews,  therefore,  would  have  an  advantage 
over  them,  if  they  could  prove  the  incorrectness  of  the 
Septuagint.] 

§  44,  a. 

II.    THE   OTHER   GREEK   VERSIONS. 

Aq,uila's  Version. 

Nothing  but  fragments  remain  of  several  other  ancient 
Greek    versions.     Aquila,"  a   Jewish  proselyte''  of  Si- 

"  In  tlie  Jerusalem  Talmud,  he  is  called  cib'ipS'j  and  in  the  Babylonian 
Talmud,  oi^p:i5-  [He  must  not  be  confounded  with  Onkelos,  0lip3Ji  >  the 
author  of  one  of  the  Targums,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Hillel  and  Sham- 
mai.]  See  §  58.  Hottinger,  1.  c.  p.  376.  JVolf,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  sub  voce.  Bar- 
tolocci,  Bib.  Rab.  vol.  iv.  p.  281,  sq.  Hody,  p.  573,  sqq.  Eichhorn,  §  210,  thinlis 
the  two  are  different  men,  judging  from  the  more  free  character  of  the  trans- 
lation in  those  fragments  cited  from  him  by  Rabbi  Asarias,  m  Meor  Enajim, 
fol.  146,  col.  2.    See,  also,  Buxtorf,  Lexicon  Talmud,  sub  voce  T.oi?2  • 

*  IretKEus,  iii.  24.  Eusehius,  Demonst.  Ev.  vii.  1.  Jerome,  Ep.  ad  Pam- 
mach.  0pp.  iv.  pt  ii.  p.  255.  Catal.  Script,  eccles.  ch.  54.  0pp.  iv.  pt.  ii. 
p.  116.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  preface  to  Job,  and  elsewhere,  he  calls  him 
a  Jew.    There  is  a  fabulous  account  of  his  conversion  to  Judaism,  in  Epipha- 


152  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [§  44,  «. 

nope,"  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,*  made  a 
literal  and  faithful  version''  for  the  use  of  the  Jews, 
which  they  preferred  to  the  Septuagint.'^ 

nius,  De  Pond,  et  Mens.  ch.  14.  Hieros.,  Megilla,  fol.  71,  col.  3,  and  Kid- 
dush,  fol.  59,  col.  1,  say,  "Aquila  the  proselyte  ti'anslated,  in  presence  of 
Rabbi  Akiba."  See  Baiiolocci,  I.  c.  p.  282.  Morimis,  p.  341,  Hody,  p.  574. 
Jerome,  in  Isaiah  xiii, 

"  According  to  Epiphanhis,  he  Avas  nerdeQliijg  of  Hadrian,  [which  some 
translate  father-in-law,  others,  more  properly,  son  of  his  father-in-laiv.] 
Compare  Shem.  Rabba,  §  30.     Shalshal.  Hakk.  fol.  28,  col.  2. 

*  Justin,  Dial,  cum  Tryphone,  ch.  71,  p.  169,  seems  to  cite  Aquila  : 

JIeqI  Trig  XiSiiog  TTJc,  'lUnvri  TruQQivog  if  yaaiQl  Xr^i/jSKxi,  (xPTsinuie, 
Xiyovxeg  elqriudui,  'Idov  i)  veaftc  if  yaarql  h\ijiEini.  But  Credner  has 
shown  that  this  does  not  refer  to  him.  Beitrage,  vol.  ii.  p.  198.  [Ireneeiis, 
who  flourished  about  177 — 192,  seems  to  speak  of  him  as  a  contemporary, 
iii.  24.] 

""  Jerome,  Ep.  ad  Pammach.,  speaking  of  the  best  kind  of  interpretation, 
Opp.  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.  255,  says,  "  Aquila,  a  proselyte,  and  a  contentious  inter- 
preter, who  has  attempted,  not  only  to  translate  words,  but  also  the  etymolo- 
gy of  words,  is  properly  rejected  by  us  ; "  and  adds :  Quis  enim  ^xofrumento 
et  vino  et  oleo  posset  vel  legere  vel  intelligere  xeviuu,  dnMoia/ndv,  onXnvo- 
rtjru,  quod  nos  possumus  dicere  fimonem,  ponuttionem  et  splendentiam  ?  Aut 
quia  Hebraici  non  solum  habent  aoOqa,  sed  et  no^uqdoa,  ille  zfxxo^rjAo)?  et 
syllabas  interpretatur  et  litteras,  dicitque  avv  ibv  ovquvqv  y.al  avv  T-)]f  yrif, 
quod  Grseca  et  Latina  lingua  oranino  non  recipit.  But,  Com.  in  Hos.  ii.,  he 
calls  him  "  curious  and  diligent,"  and,  Ep.  125,  ad  Damasum,  Opp.  ii.  p.  567, 
says  he  is  "  not  contentious,  as  some  think ;  but  he  has  carefully  translated 
word  for  word."  Ep.  138,  ad  Marcell.  Opp.  ii.  p.  707,  he  calls  him  "  a  most 
diligent  examiner  of  Hebrew  words,"  and  in  Isaiah  xlix.  says.  He  is  "  pro- 
foundly learned  in  the  Hebrew  tongue."  Origen,  Ep.  ad  Africanum,  says  he 
is  a  slave  to  the  letter  of  his  text ;  dovXevcof  t-^  'ESQu'ixfj  liSei.  See  the  un- 
favorable judgment  of  Ireneeus  upon  this  version,  1.  c,  of  Euseljius,  1.  c,  and 
Philastrius,  [Hjeres.  ch.  90.  See,  also,  Monifaucon,  Pra3lim.  in  Hexap.  p. 
50.]     See  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  556.     Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  69,  p.  150. 

"*  Origen,  Ep.  ad  Africanum:  IhXotiuoteqov  nsniarsv/UEPog  ttuqu' lovdcdovg 

-tlQf/Tjvevxifui  TTjj'  yQa(pijf.  Jlugusti7ius,De  Civitat.  Dei,  xv.  23.  Aquila 

quem  interpretem  Judsi  cfeteris  anteponunt.  In  the  146th  Novella  of  Jus- 
tinian, permission  is  given  to  use  Aquila,  [and  all  the  vernacular  versions,  it 
would  appear,]  while  the  use  of  the  ^eviiQixtaig  was  forbidden.  Bertholdt, 
§  160,  thinks  tliis  was  the.  second  edition  of  Aquila ;  but  it  is  only  the  collection 
of  rabbinical  ivriiings  which.  \\Q  ^xoscxSbes.  See  the  edict,  and  an  explana- 
tion of  it  in  Hody,  p.  2Ji7,  sqq.,  and  577.  It  is  probable  the  Ebionites  received 
it  But  this  does  not  follow  from  the  following  passage  of  lren<zus,  as  it  is 
sometimes  maintained,  iii.  24 :    'AIX'  ovx'  wc  ivioi  cpaol  iwf  fvf  ftedsQ- 


^  44,  «.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  153 

[We  know  little  about  this  translator.  Epiphanius  — 
alas !  a  writer  not  to  be  trusted  on  account  of  the  foolish 
things  with  which  his  narrative  is  overlaid  —  is  the  only 
one  who  has  furnished  us  with  the  life  of  Aquila.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  he  was  by  birth  a  heathen  Greek,  from 
Sinope,  in  Pontus,  and  was  related  to  the  emperor  Ha- 
drian, it  is  not  certain  how  nearly.  When  Hadrian  re- 
turned from  the  East  to  Rome,  he  gave  him  the  charge 
of  rebuilding  Jerusalem,  which  had  been  reduced  to 
ashes,  and  called  the  new  city  JEA'm  Capitolina.  Here 
he  became  acquainted  with  the  Christians  who  had  re- 
turned from  Pella,  was  pleased  with  their  religion,  and 
was  baptized.  While  a  Christian,  he  continued  the 
practice  of  astrology,  as  he  had  done  when  a  heathen. 
His  new  brethren  complained  to  him  of  this  abuse.  In- 
stead of  amending,  he  defended  himself  by  sophistical 
arguments,  and  was  expelled  from  the  Christian  church. 
In  revenge  for  his  ignominious  expulsion,  he  went  over 
to  the  Jews,  studied  Hebrew  with  great  diligence,  and, 
for  the  sake  of  the  Jews,  made  a  new  Greek  version  of 
the  Bible,  which  was  injurious  to  the  Christians,  as  it 
rendered  victory  over  the  Jews  more  difficult  than  before. 

The  above  story  is  very  improbable  in  itself.  All  that 
can  be  determined  with  certainty  is,  that  this  version 
could  not  have  been  made  more  than  one  hundred  and 
thirty  years  A.  C,  for  Irenseus  cites  it  frequently  in  his 
books  against  heresies,  written  about  176,  177,  and 
not  less  than  forty  years  must  have  elapsed  after  its 
composition,  before  it  could  come  into  common  use  in 
distant  countries. 

(irjvevevv  ToX/idvmv  r-fiv  ygaqti^v  ido\)  ■fj  veavig  iv  yaaiQl  s^erai  vlov,  &g 
QsoSozUav  ^qfiifivEvaBv  6  'Ecpiaiog  xal  'Axvlag  6  Ilovxi^xbg,  d.ficf)6xsQ0t 
lovdaiot  nQoa^lvTOt>  olg  xaTaxolovdr^aavteg  oi  ^E^uavoXot.,  ^|  ^laaiicp  ai- 
rbv  yEYevy\a6ai  q>&Cfxovai. 

VOL.  I.  20 


154  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^  44,  «. 

Antiquity  in  general  agrees  that  he  undertook  this 
version  at  the  instance  of  the  Jews,  his  new  confeder- 
ates. Irenoeus  goes  farther,  and  says  it  was  at  the  so- 
licitation of  his  Hebrew  teacher,  Rabbi  Akiba.  The 
Jerusalem  Talmud  says  Akilas,  a  Greek  translator,  was  as- 
sisted in  his  work  by  the  rabbins  who  taught  him.  Per- 
haps Aquila  undertook  the  work  to  please  the  Jews,  even 
if  he  did  not  succeed.  Afterwards  they  used  the  new 
version,  because  they  could  no  longer  defend  themselves 
with  the  Septuagint  in  their  controversies  with  the 
Christians.  The  old  version  seemed  too  free,  and  con- 
tained numerous  glosses  and  defective  passages.  Aquila 
is  very  literal.  He  counts  Greek  words  as  nothing  to 
the  Hebrew.  He  never  lets  a  syllable  of  the  original 
escape  him ;  not  even  the  etymology  of  a  Hebrew  word. 
He  not  only  allows  himself  barbarisms,  but  all  sorts  of 
inaccuracies  in  the  use  of  Greek,  if  he  can  only  express 
the  original  more  rigorously  by  such  means.  The  Jews 
excluded  the  Alexandrian  version,  and  substituted  that 
of  Aquila  in  its  place.  It  seems  the  Ebionites  had 
adopted  it  before  178,  for  Irenaeus  wrote  against  the 
heresies  they  derived  from  this  version." 

Epiphanius  says  that,  though  he  understood  the  He- 
brew language  very  well,  yet  he  undertook  this  transla- 
tion with  no  good  design,  but  that  he  might  pervert 
some  passages  of  Scripture.  He  attacked  the  translation 
of  the  Seventy,  to  the  end  that  he  might  render  in  a  dif- 
ferent way  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  respecting 
Christ ;  and  by  this  means  he  sought  an  apology  for  his 
absurd  conduct,  [that  is,  for  his  apostasy.* 

"  [See  jEic/i/iom,  §  187.] 

^  JUpiphanius,  1.  c:  'HQfnqvevaev  ovx  dgda  loyiufta  xQV'^'^f^^^^Sf  <^^^* 
o>-TWS  dittCTTQiiprj  riv&  rvtv  qrjxuiv,  ivaxifiipag  rrj  my  i^dofir^xovju  8io  kq- 
^tjvBla:  Ivu  t6  itEql  Xgiczov  Ip  rais  yqacpalg  fie/^aQTVQTjjuiva  (HXXcog  ixd(h~ 
OBI,  5t'  Tjv  sJ^ev  ttl5(b  el;  UXoyov  airov  inoXoylcd'. 


§44,  a.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS  155 

Bruns,  in  his  edition  of  Kennicott,"  adds  a  passage 
from  a  Greek  manuscript,  where  Aquila  is  accused,  in 
bitter  words,  of  falsifying  the  Hebrew  text.  However, 
the  charges  brought  against  him  are  mainly  urged  by 
such  as  did  not  understand  the  original,  and  could  only 
compare  this  with  the  old  version.  The  Fathers  them- 
selves knew  how  to  appeal  to  Aquila,  when  his  transla- 
tion favored  their  design,  especially  in  the  controversy 
with  the  Arians.  Jerome,  the  most  competent  witness, 
finds  no  trace  of  such  falsifications.  He  even  says, 
"  When  I  compare  Aquila's  edition  with  the  Hebrew 
volumes,  I  do  not  find  that  the  synagogue  has  changed 
any  thing  through  hatred  to  Christ,  and  I  will  gladly 
confess  that  I  find  more  which  tends  to  confirm  our 
faith."*  However,  the  polemic  tendency  of  Aquila  can- 
not be  denied. 

Aquila  is  still  very  valuable  for  philological  and  crit- 
ical purposes.  Since  he  adheres  so  closely  to  the  words 
of  the  text,  we  can  prove  more  easily  from  him  than 
from  any  other  translator,  how^  slight  was  the  grammat- 
ical acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  language  at  the  time. 
Much  may  be  gained  from  him  to  enrich  the  Hebrew 
Lexicon,  and  explain  the  New  Testament.  He  is  a 
treasure  of  the  greatest  value  for  criticism.  It  can  often 
be  shown  from  his  version,  that  the  readings  of  our  mas- 
oretic  text,  which  other  old  translators  seem  to  con- 
demn, are  in  fact  very  ancient ;  and  from  this  it  becomes 

"  Diss.  Gen.  §  69. 

''  [Jero7ne,  Ep.  24,  ad  Marcellum.  Some  particular  specifications  have 
been  urged  against  him.  Thus  Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  p.  310,  complains  that 
the  Jews  translate  veavig  [a  young  ivoman)  in  Isa.  vii.  14,  wlysre  the  LXX. 
has  naodivoc,  [a  virgin,)  But  here  is  no  corruption,  only  a  difference  of  in- 
terpretation. In  Isa.  xlix.  5,  Aquila  reads,  "Israel  shall  be  gathered  to 
him,"  instead  of  «  shall  not  be  gathered."  But  our  present  editions  of  the 
Bible  give  both  readings,  ^^  and  i^^.    Eichhorn,  §  187.] 


156  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^  44,  «. 

highly  probable  that  the  variations  of  the  other  ancient 
translators  arose  from  no  difference  in  the  text,  but  from 
the  free  method  of  translating. 

Although  Aquila,  at  first,  made  a  version  that  was 
scrupulously  literal,  yet  here  and  there  some  single  pas- 
sages deceived  him ;  at  least,  he  thought  they  were  too 
free.  He  therefore  revised  his  work,  and  made  several 
passages  still  more  slavishly  literal.  We  know  of  the 
second  edition  of  his  version  mainly  through  Jerome, 
who  sometimes  calls  it  "  the  second  edition  of  Aquila," 
and  sometimes,  "  the  second  edition,  which  the  Hebrews 
call  the  accurate,'^''  and  sometimes,  "  the  second  interpre- 
tation or  translation.''''  The  last  expression  has  seduced 
some  of  the  learned  into  the  belief  that  it  was  an  entire 
new  version  of  Aquila  ;  but  the  fragments  of  it,  preserved 
in  Jerome's  commentaries  upon  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Dan- 
iel, only  differ  from  those  of  the  first  edition  in  their 
accuracy.  The  second  edition  certainly  extended  over 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Daniel ;  for  in  these  books  Jerome 
uses  both  editions.  Perhaps  it  comprised  all  the  Old 
Testament. 

But  Aquila  has  not  escaped  the  devastations  of  time. 
Nothing  but  a  few  fragments  is  left  of  him.  Flaminius 
Nobilis,  Drusius,  and  Montfaucon,  have  collected  them 
from  the  Fathers  and  from  manuscripts ;  but  they  have 
given  him  much  that  was  never  his,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  ascribed  much  that  was  his  to  Theodotion 
and  Symmachus.]" 

"  [See  Eichhoni,  §  188 — 190.  Other  works,  which  treat  of  this  version,  are 
tlae  following :  Bathe's  treatise  De  Aquilte  Reliquiis  in  Hoseam,  in  J.  A.  Daihii 
Opuscula,  «Sic.,  ed.  Roscnmulkr ;  Lips.  1796,  8vo.  Fischer,  Prolusiones  ;  Cla- 
ris in  Grsscas  Versiones,  and  his  Censura  Versionura  Malachise.  Drusius, 
Veterum  Interpretum  Gra^corum  Fragmenta ;  Arnheim,  1622,  4to.,  reprinted 
in  Walton's  Polyglot,  vol.  vi,  Montfaucon,  Originis  Hexapl.  qiise  supersunt ; 
Paris,  1713,  2  vols,  fol.l 


^44,6.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  157 

^  44,  b. 
Theodotion's  Version. 

Theodotion"  did  little  but  revise  the  version  of  the 
Seventy.*  The  Christians  used  his  translation  of  Daniel 
instead  of  the  Alexandrian  translation.  Thus  Jerome 
says,    "  The  churches  do  not  read  Daniel  the  prophet, 

"  IrencEus,  iii.  24,  calls  him  6  'Ecpiaiog  lovScdog  ngocr'<]}.vTog.  Jerome, 
Ep.  89,  ad  August.  0pp.  iv.  pL  ii.  p.  626:  Hominis  Judai  atque  blaspheini 
editio.  See  Prsef.  Com.  in  Dan.:  Juxta  Theodotionem,  qui  utique  post 
adventum  Christi  incredulus  fuit :  licet  eum  quidam  dicant  Hebionitam,  qui 
altero  genere  Judaeus  est.  Prcef.  in  Esram:  Judoeos  et  Hebionilas  legis 
veteris  interpretes,  Aquilam  videlicet  et  Symmachum  et  Theodotionem. 
Prsef.  in  Job  :  Judaeus  Aquila  et  Symmachus  et  Theodotio  Judaizantes  hse- 
retici,  qui  multa  mysteria  Salvatoris  subdola  interpretatioue  celarunt.  Catal. 
Scriptt.  Eccles.  c.  54.  0pp.  iv.  pt  ii.  p.  116 :  Theodotionis  Hehionai.  Com. 
in  Hab.  iii. :  Theodotio  vere  quasi  pauper  et  Hebionita,  sed  et  Symmachus 
ejusdem  dogmatis,  pauperem  sensum  secuti  Judaice  transtulerunt.  Isti  sevii- 
christiani  Judaice  transtulerunt :  et  Judseus  Aquila  interpretatus  est,  ut 
Christianus.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  8,  merely  repeats  Irenieus.  Epipha- 
niiis,  1.  c.  ch.  17,  says :  TIovTtxug  dnd  jr^g  diado/^g  MuQxlojrog,  firjviwv  y.ul 
avrug  jfj  airov  uioiaeb  xal  slg  ' lovda'iafxdv  unoKMvag  xal  nEQir/nrjO^lg, 
xil.  See  these  false  statements  as  to  the  date,  corrected,  in  Hody,  p.  579,  sq., 
and  Stroth,  in  Eichhorn's  Rep.  vol.  ii.  p.  76,  sq.  Irenceus,  1.  c,  and  perhaps 
Justin,  are  acquainted  witli  him.     See  Sb'oth,  1.  c.  p.  75. 

*  Jerome  says,  in  Eccles.  ii. :  "  The  LXX.  and  Theodotion  agree  in  this 
as  well  as  in  many  places."  Prsef.  in  Evang. :  "He  takes  a  course  midway 
between  the  new  (Aquila  and  Symmachus)  and  the  old  (the  LXX.)"  Prasf. 
in  Psalt.:  "  In  simplicity  ot  style  he  did  not  disagree  with  the  LXX."  Praef. 
in  Job  :  "Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  either  express  it  word  by  word, 
or  sense  by  sense,  or  use  a  kind  of  translation  composed  of  both  systems,  cor- 
rected by  one  another,"  (vel  verbum  ex  verbo,  vel  sensum  ex  sensu,  vel  ex 
utroque  commixtum  et  medie  temperatum  genus  translationis  expresserunt.) 
Epiphaniiis  says,  1.  c.  ch.  17 :  "  He  made  the  greatest  part  of  his  version  in 
harmony  with  the  LXX.,  for  he  adopted  most  of  his  habits  of  translation  from 
the  customs  of  the  LXX."  Jerome,  in  Jerem.  xxix.  17,  speaking  of  the  bad 
Jigs,  says :  Theodotio  interpretatus  est  sudrinas ;  secunda,  pessima ;  Sym- 
machus novissimas.  Whence  it  might  be  thought  there  were  two  editions  of 
Theodotion ;  but  Hody,  p.  584,  [who  was  the  first  to  notice  this  passage,] 

gives  a  conjectural  reading,  and  inserts  "Aquilae  prima  editio" before 

"secunda."  [Then  the  whole  passage  would  read,  Theodotion  translated  it 
Siidrinas ;  the  first  edition  of  Aquila,  &c. ;  the  !?econd,  pessima,  Sic] 


138  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^44,6. 

according  to  the  Seventy,  but  use  Theodotion's  edition, 
and  I  know  not  why  it  happens.  Either  because  the 
style  is  Chaldaic,  and  differs  in  some  peculiarities  from 
our  style,  and  so  the  Seventy  were  unwilling  to  preserve 
these  features  of  the  language  in  their  translation  ;  or  the 
book  was  published  under  their  name,  by  some  person  — 
I  know  not  by  whom — that  was  not  sufficiently  ac- 
quainted with  the  Chaldaic  language,  or  for  some  other 
cause  of  which  I  am  ignorant.  This  one  thing  I  can 
affirm,  —  that  it  differs  much  from  the  truth,  and  ought 
justly  to  he  rejected ^^ 

[Theodotion,  says  Epiphanius,  was  born  at  Sinope,  in 
Pontus.  For  a  tirtie  he  adhered  to  the  party  of  Marcion 
the  heretic,  but  afterwards  deserted  it,  because  he  con- 
ceived himself  injured  by  this  party,  and  went  over  to 
the  Jews.  But  Irenaeus  and  other  credible  Fathers  give 
a  very  different  account.     Irenaeus  calls  him  an  Ephe- 

"  Jerome,  Praef.  in  Vers.  Danielis  :  Danielem  prophetam  juxta  LXX.  intt. 
ecclesia;  non  legimt,  utentes  Theodotionis  editione;  et  hoc  cur  acciderit 
nescio.  Sive  quia  sermo  Chaldaicus  est  et  quibusdam  proprietatibus  a  nos- 
tro  eloquio  discrepat,  noluerunt  LXX.  intt.  easdem  linguee  lineas  in  transla- 
tione  servare ;  sive  sub  nomine  eorum  ab  alio,  nescio  quo,  non  satis  Chaldas- 
am  linguam  sciente,  editus  est  liber ;  sive  aliud  quid  causae  extiterit  ignorans : 
hoc  unum  affirmare  possum,  quod  multum  a  veritate  discordet  et  redo  judicio 
repudiata  sit.  Compare  Jerome,  Proem.  Com.  in  Dan.,  Prolog,  in  Jos., 
Apol.  cont.  Rufin.  ii.  33.  Hody,  p.  289.  Bertholdt,  Uebersetz  des  Dan.  vol. 
i.  p.  142. 

[Theodotion's  version  of  Daniel  is  often  found  m  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  and 
the  Septuagint  version  of  that  book  was  so  rarely  transcribed  that  only  one 
MS.  of  it  is  extant,  from  which  it  was  printed  at  Rome  m  1772,  with  the  title 
Daniel  secundum  LXX.  ex  tetraplis  Originis,  nunc  primum  editus  e  singu- 
Iwi  Codice  chisiano,  &c.  fol.  See  an  account  of  it  in  Le  Long,  Mascli's  ed. 
It  consists  entirely  of  fragments.  Theodotion  and  Aquila,  both,  omitted  the 
Lamentations  of  Jeremiah.  Some  have  thought  Theodotion  was  the  first  to 
translate  the  Apocrypha ;  but  there  is  evidence  to  the  contrary.  Gesner  and 
Grotius  declared  that  the  Greek  version  of  the  Chronicles  in  the  MSS.  of  the 
LXX.  proceeded  from  Theodotion.  But  this  decision  cannot  be  supported. 
See  Hody,  p.  583,  sq.] 


^44,0.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  159 

sian  ;  Jerome,  sometimes  an  Ebionite,  sometimes  a  Jew. 
The  authority  of  these  worthy  men  is  always  superior  to 
that  of  the  fabulist  Epiphanius. 

Epiphanius  places  the  date  of  this  version  in  the  time 
of  the  emperor  Commodus  the  Second,  and,  to  support 
this  assertion,  creates  a  new  series  of  Roman  emperors. 
This  only  is  certain,  —  that  he  must  have  lived,  and  have 
made  his  version,  a  considerable  time  before  the  year  160 
A.  C;  for  not  only  Irenoeus  uses  it,  about  177  or  178, 
in  his  book  against  heresies,  but  Justin  Martyr,  in  his 
dialogue  with  the  Jew  Trypho,  which  was  composed 
about  160  A.  C.  The  style  of  his  version  holds  a 
medium  between  the  scrupulousness  of  Aquila  and  the 
freedom  of  Symmachus.  For  the  most  part,  he  followed 
the  Seventy,  and  adhered  to  their  text,  where  it  was 
possible,  word  for  word.  His  translation,  therefore,  may 
be  regarded  as  little  more  than  a  new  recension  of  the 
Alexandrian  version,  made  with  great  freedom.  But,  to 
do  this,  he  consulted  the  Hebrew  text,  and  translated 
directly  from  it,  especially  where  there  were  chasms  in 
the  Septuagint.  In  such  places,  he  betrays  his  very 
slight  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  language ;  for,  even 
when  there  are  great  difficulties  in  the  original,  he  often 
adheres  to  the  very  words.  Therefore,  since  he  came 
so  close  to  the  Septuagint,  Origen,  in  his  Hexapla,  for 
the  most  part,  supplied  the  chasms  of  the  old  version 
from  this.  On  account  of  his  dependence  upon  the 
Septuagint,  the  utility  of  his  work  in  a  critical  recension 
of  the  original  Hebrew  is  very  much  limited.  For  the 
most  part,  it  is  but  a  single  voice.  Notwithstanding 
this,  all  the  fragments  of  it  are  valuable,  especially  for 
the  restoration  of  the  Alexandrian  text.] " 

"  See  Eichhorn,  §  197—200. 


160  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^  44,  C. 

§  44,  C. 

Version  of  Symmachus. 

Symmachus"  endeavored  to  obtain  a  pure  Greek  style, 
and  translated  more  freely.*  [Our  accounts  of  Symma- 
chus are  derived  mainly  from  Epiphanius,  who  says  he 
was  a  Samaritan.  He  was  honored  as  a  sage  by  his 
countrymen;  but,  not  satisfied  with  this,  he  desired  polit- 
ical supremacy  among  them.  But,  since  they  did  not  agree 
to  his  plans,  he  went  over  to  the  Jews,  and,  out  of  hatred 
to  the  Samaritans,  continues  this  improbable  story,  made 
a  new  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  From  this  we 
can  only  gather  that  he  was  a  half- Jew,  an  Ebionite. 
This  is  confirmed  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome. 

Epiphanius  places  him  under  the  reign  of  Severus, 

"  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  17.  Demonst.  Evang.  vii.  1,  calls  him  an 
Ebionite.  Compare  Jerome,  as  cited  p.  157.  His  statement  is  confirmed  by 
the  Syriac  accounts  mAsseman,  Bib.  Orient,  vol.  ii.  p.  278,  sqq.  vol.  iii.  pt.  i.  p. 

17.     Epiphanius,  I.e.  ch.  16,  says :  SafiaqeLTi^g voai\(Tag  (filagxlaf 

TTQoaTjlvrevei,  xal  neqiiEi^ivETav  devregov.     That  he  was  younger  than 

Theodotion,  follows  from  the  silence  of  IrencEus,  and  from  Jerome,  on  Isaiah 
xxxviii.  Symmachus  in  Theodotionis  scita  transiit  Yet  see  Strath,  1.  c. 
p.  126.    See,  also,  Petavius,  ad  Epiphanius,  p.  399,  sqq. 

*  Epiphanius,  1.  c. :  ngug  diaargocpr^v  jwv  nagu  2apagslTtttg  igurjvsiav 
kguTjvevaag    rriv    jgiTt^v  s^idioxev  ioiitrji'slav.     Jerome,    Com.  in  Amos  iii. 

non  solet  verborum  xaxo'CijUav,  sed  intelligentiae  ordinem  sequi.    Com. 

in  J  es.  i. :  Symmachus  more  suo  manifestius.  Compare  chap.  v.  Hody,  p. 
588.  Monifaucon,  Hexapl.  p.  54.  Thieme,  De  Puritate  Symmachi ;  Lips. 
1735,  4to.  There  was  a  second  edition  of  it,  according  to  Jerome,  Com.  in 
Jer.  xxxii.  and  on  Nahum  iii.  See  Hody,  p.  580.  [According  to  a  catalogue 
of  Greek  manuscripts  in  the  possession  of  Constantimis  Bariwus,  there  is  a 
copy  of  the  entire  version  in  his  library.  Some  think  the  Greek  Psalter,  now 
extant  among  us,  and  from  which  the  Latin  Vulgate  is  translated,  is  not 
from  the  LXX.,  but  from  Symmachus.  But  there  is  not  sufficient  ground  for 
the  position.  Others,  still  more  erroneously,  maintain  the  entire  Vulgate  was 
translated  from  the  version  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  or  Theodotion,  and  they 
are  probably  misled  by  the  old  Latin  version  of  Symmachus.  mentioned 
above.    See  Hody,  p.  588.] 


^44,  c]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  161 

making  him  earlier  than  Theodotion,  whom  he  places 
under  an  emperor  known  only  to  himself.  But  Jerome 
says,  "  Symmachus  made  use  of  Theodotion."  The  ex- 
act date  of  the  version  is  still  uncertain.  Irenseus  never 
mentions  it  in  his  book  against  heresies,  and  yet  Stroth 
finds  it  often  cited  by  Justin  Martyr  in  the  dialogue  with 
Trypho,  written  about  160.  It  had  a  place  in  Origen's 
Hexapla. 

The  style  of  this  is  purer  than  that  of  any  other  Greek 
version ;  the  author  is  more  desirous  of  imparting  the 
meaning  of  the  original  than  of  rendering  its  words  lit- 
erally ;  and  from  this  peculiarity  it  has  been  called  "  the 
perspicuous,  manifest,  and  admirable  version."  It  has  a 
very  free  course  ;  here  the  translator  exchanges  the  He- 
braisms for  corresponding  Greek  expressions,  there  he 
files  them  away  ;  and  if  some  hard  expressions  are  still 
left  in  all,  it  must  be  excused,  on  consideration  of  the 
difficulty  of  translating  the  Hebrew  text  into  pure 
Greek,  or  on  the  supposition  that,  in  such  places,  the 
fragments  of  some  other  version  have,  perhaps,  been  at- 
tributed to  Symmachus.  The  good  tone  of  this  version 
seems  to  have  excited  the  ancients  to  translate  it  into 
Latin.  Jerome  has  given  us  a  short  account  of  this 
version. 

There  were  two  editions  of  Symmachus's  translation ; 
but  it  is  impossible  to  determine  whether  the  second 
comprised  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  is 
as  useful  for  philological  purposes  as  the  other  Greek 
versions ;  but,  on  account  of  its  free  and  sometimes  par- 
aphrastic style,  greater  caution  is  needed  in  applying  it 
to  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text.]" 

All   three  of  the  above  versions  strive  after  greater 

"  Ekhhom,  §  191—195. 
VOL.    I.  21 


162  THE    CREEK    VERSIONS.  [§  44,  d. 

fidelity  than  the  Seventy,  and  avoid  the  explanation  of 
metaphors.  They  all  frequently  agree  in  differing  from 
the  Septuagint. 

k^  4A,d. 

The  Three  Anonymous  Versions,  &c. 

There  are,  besides,  fragments  of  three  anonymous  ver- 
sions, which  are  called  Qui?ita,  Sexta,  Septima,  from  their 
place  in  Origen's  work  on  the  Bible."  [In  the  "literary 
journey"  which  Origen  made  to  collect  the  materials  for 
his  polyglot,  ])eside  the  above-mentioned  versions  of  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  found  three  other  ver- 
sions from  unknown  authors,  and  of  an  unknown  an- 
tiquity, which  extend  over  some  of  the  books.  He  placed 
them  in  the  last  columns  of  his  Hexapla,  and,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  first  four  Greek  columns,  he  called  them  the 
Jijih,  sixth,  and  seveiith  Greek  translations. 

There  are  no  certain  accounts  of  these  three  versions; 
for  what  the  ancients  have  written  respecting  them 
bears  marks  of  the  extremest  improbability.  According 
to  Epiphanius,  the  fijih  version  was  made  at  Jericho; 
but,  according  to  Jerome,  it  was  found  in  a  tub  at  Ni- 

"  Epiphanius,  I.  c.  ch.  17:    Euosdrj  i)  niuini]  ep  Tildoig,  if  'Ifqi^w  >fe- 

X()VjHfiEi'ij kP  xqnioig  KaQoiyAXlou  le  xctl  rira.     Eusebius,  Hist.  EccL 

vi.  IG,  says  only  that  one  of  the  three  was  found  there.  Jerome,  Prfef  ad 
Orig.  Homil.  in  Cant.  Cant,  says,  Quintani  editionem,  quani  in  Actoso  littore 
invenisse  se  scribit  ^Origenes.)  Epiphanius,  1.  c. :  EvqiOrj  Sxtij  txdoaig  yol 
nvri]  iv  txIBoiq  y.Ey.qv^i^ivr]  iv  Niy-ondkEi  ttj  ii^hc,  'Axiia.  Eusebius,]. c, 
has  one  of  the  three  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus  and  Theodotion  found 
tliere.  On  tlie  extent  of  these  versions,  see  Jerome,  Com.  in  Titum  iii. 
Hodi/,  p.  590,  sqq.  Jerome,  Apol.  cont.  Rufinum,  ii.  34,  says,  Aquila,  Sym- 
machus, Theodotion,  and  the  autliors  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  version,  were  Jews. 
The  fragment  of  Hab.  iii.  13,  sliows  tlie  author  of  the  sixtli  was  a  Cliristian: 
^E^r^Weg  Tov  owonv  ibi'  Xu6t>  aov  Siu  ' Iijoov  lov  Xqioiox)  gov. 


^44,  f/.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  163 

copolis,  ill  Actiuin,  by  Origen.  On  the  contrary,  Epi- 
phanius  says  he  found  the  sixth  at  Nicopolis,  in  a  tub, 
and  Eusebius  says  he  found  the  seventh  in  a  tub  at  Jer- 
i^iho." 

1.  Some  fragments  of  ihe  fifth  version  still  remain, 
from  which  it  appears  its  author  had  the  Seventy,  Aqui- 
la,  Theodotion,  and  Symmachus,  before  him.  It  usually 
agrees  with  the  Seventy,  or  Theodotion,  and,  when  it 
differs  from  them,  it  commonly  takes  an  expression  sy- 
nonymous with  theirs  ;  and  yet  it  bears  marks  of  an 
acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  original. 

2.  The  sixth  version  was  made  by  a  Christian,  as  we 
learn  from  a  fragment,  in  which  it  appears  he  found  a 
distinct  prediction  of  Jesus  Christ  in  Hab.  iii.  13.  But 
perhaps  the  passage  is  a  gloss.  This  version  agrees 
with  the  Septuagint,  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodo- 
tion. It  only  included  the  Pentateuch,  the  minor  Proph- 
ets, the  Psalms,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon. 

3.  Of  the  seventh  version  only  the  smallest  fragments 
remain ;  most  of  which  are  found  in  the  relics  of  Ori- 
gen's  Hexapla,  and  in  a  Syriac  hexaplary  manuscript 
preserved  at  Paris.] 

Several  fragments  of  versions  occur  as  marginal  notes 
in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Alexandrian  version.  Among 
others  we  find  the  Hebrew,  (0  '  E[-jC)aLog,)  which  con- 
tains remarks  on  the  text  of  the  Septuagint,  arising  from 
comparing  it  with  the  Hebrew  text.  These  are  chiefly 
collected  from  Jerome.* 

TTie  Syrian  (  0  ^voog)  is  a  Greek  version  from  Je- 
rome's new  Latin  version,  made  by  Sopronius,  patriarch 
of  Byzantium.       [It  was   called   the  Syrian  either  be- 

"  Eichhorn,  §  201.  *  See  Eichhom,  §  206. 


164  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^41,  r?. 

cause  it  was  chiefly  used  by  the  Syrian  Christians, — 
and,  accordingly,  we  find  it  cited  by  Eusebius  of  Emessa, 
(not  the  historian,)  Diodorus,  and  Theodoret,  —  or  be- 
cause he  resided  a  long  time  in  Syria.  He  is  called  a 
Syrian  in  a  passage  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.]  " 

Tlie  Samaritan  (To  ^aaaQeiTixov)  is  a  Greek  version 
of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  [Sometimes  this  term 
designates  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  itself.  It  is  quoted 
by  the  Fathers  who  lived  after  the  third  century,  and 
contains  explanatory  and  paraphrastic  passages.  It  is 
evidently  the  work  of  a  Samaritan,  but  is  of  little  value, 
except  so  far  as  it  sheds  light  on  the  history  of  criticism 
and  exegesis.]* 

The  Greek  (  0  '  EklrjVLXog)  is  an  unknown  Greek 
version. 

[Besides  those  versions  already  named,  and  that  found 
in  the  library  at  Venice,"  there  may  have  been  many 
others  in  ancient  times,  which  are  either  lost  or  exist 
unknown  in  libraries.  Origen,  by  the  merest  accident, 
it  would  seem,  rescued  several  versions  from  oblivion. 
Why  may  there  not  have  been  more,  which  no  Origen 
ever  found  ?  It  was  not  until  recently  the  Alexandrian 
version  of  Daniel  was  discovered,  or  the  Venetian  man- 
uscript. May  there  not  be  others  still  undiscovered?^ 
The  manuscripts  of  the  Seventy  contain  marginal  refer- 
ences to  versions  now  unknown.] 

"  See  Photius,  in  Biblioth.  cod.  227,  p.  205  ;  ed.  Hoeschelii,  in  Eichlwrn, 
§  207.  See,  also,  Ddderlein^s  dissertation  entitled,  Q,uis  sit  6  ^vQog  V.  T. 
Grfficus  interpretes  ?  Alt  1772, 4to.  [Eichhorii,  §  207.] 

"  Eichlwrn,  §  208. 

'  See  §  56,  below. 

^  See  Eichhorn,  §  212,  and  Stroth's  contribution  to  the  criticism  of  the 
LXX.  in  his  Repert.  vol.  ii.  pp.  66 — 68. 


^45,  «.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  165 

^  45,  a. 

III.    CRITICAL   HISTORY   OF   THE   ALEXANDRIAN    VERSION. 
Origen's  ITexapla. 

The  text  of  the  Septuagint  became  corrupted  to  a 
great  extent  by  frequent  transcriptions  and  the  ca- 
price of  officious  critics.  Thus  Origen  says,  "But  now 
there  is  obviously  a  great  diversity  of  the  copies,  which 
has  arisen  either  from  the  negligence  of  some  transcri- 
bers, or  from  the  boldness  of  others,  —  as  well  as  from 
the  difficulty  of  correcting  what  was  written,  —  or  from 
others  still,  who  added  or  took  away,  as  they  saw  fit, 
in  making  their  corrections.""  Jerome  complains  of 
this  corruption,  and  says,  "  The  vulgar  edition,  which  is 
called  the  common,,  is  different  in  different  places ; " 
and  agaiii,  "  The  ancient  and  common  edition  of  the 
Scriptiu'es  is  corruj)ted  to  suit  the  time,  and  place,  and 
caprice  of  the  writers.'"'  There  are  examples  of  earlier 
corruptions  in  Philo  and  Josephus.  [Thus  Josephus" 
says,  King  Jabin  had  three  thousand  chariots,  and  three 
hundred  thousand  infantry,  and  ten  thousand  horse, 
while  the  book  of  Judges,  iv.  3,  according  to  our  present 
Hebrew  and  Greek  text,  speaks  of  only  nine  hundred 
chariots,  and  does  not  mention  the  rest  of  the  host.  But 
here  the  Targum  comes  to  our  aid,  for  it  has  inserted  the 

"  Origen,  Com.  in  Mat.  torn.  xv.  0pp.  iii.  p.  671 :  IVvi'l  dt  dt]lov6Tt 
TTollt)  yiyorsp  rj  tCjp  (xyTiygdcpCDf  Siucpoou,  el'ie  d.Txb  gadi\ulag  Ttvibv  J'oa- 
(fio)i',  ehs  (jLTio  j6lut]g  jivvtv  /loxOrjoug  jr^g  diOQdcoaeo);  libp  you(pouev(x,v^ 
fiTS  xul  (irro  tSj'  rd  eavroTc  doxoiiPta  Iv  t>J  diogOoxrci,  7TQO(JTi6ivTO)v  JJ 
dcpaioov^Twi'.  On  the  additions  of  the  Seventy,  see  Ep.  ad  Afiicanus,  0pp. 
i.  p.  12. 

*  Jerome,  Proem,  in  lib.  xvi.  Com.  in  Jes. ;  Ep.  ad  Sunniam  et  Fretelam. 

"  Josephus,  Antiq.  v.  5,  1.  See  Grabe,  De  Vitiis  LXX.  Interpretum  ante 
Origenis  .^vum  illatis ;  Oxon.  1710,  4to.  p.  3,  sqq,    Eichhom,  §  167. 


166  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^  45,  «. 

same  addition.  Hence  it  appears  Josephus  followed  tra- 
dition, and  not  a  different  reading  in  the  manuscripts. 
The  text  of  this  version  could  not  have  been  much  cor- 
rupted in  the  time  of  Christ,  to  judge  from  the  works  of 
Philo  and  Josephus,  and  yet  it  appears  to  have  been  al- 
tered in  some  measure  soon  after  that  period." 

But  says  Eichhorn,  "  From  the  time  of  the  birth  of 
Christ  to  that  of  Origen,  the  text  of  the  Al,exandrian  version 
was  lamentably  disfigured  by  arbitrary  alterations,  interpo- 
lations, omissions,  and  mistakes.  Justin  Martyr  had  a  very 
corrupt  text,  at  least  in  the  minor  Prophets.  He  found 
readings  which  are  now  contained  neither  in  the  manu- 
scripts, nor  the  Fathers,  nor  in  the  editions  of  the  Seven- 
ty. Sometimes  they  agree  more  accurately  with  the 
Hebrew  original ;  sometimes  are  synonymous  with  the 
readings  of  the  present  text  of  the  Seventy.  The  good 
Father  could  not  have  derived  them  from  the  original ; 
for  he  knew  not  a  letter  of  Hebrew.  In  a  word,  before 
Justin's  time,  there  were  manuscripts  of  this  version, 
which  had  been  compared  with  the  Hebrew  original, 
and  altered  here  and  there.  Finally,  in  the  time  of  Ori- 
gen, the  text  was  brought  into  the  most  lamentable  state 
by  the  negligence  of  transcribers :  the  boldness  of  unhi- 
vited  criticasters,  who  altered,  added,  diminished,  singed, 
and  burned,  at  pleasure.  In  Daniel,  Job,  and  Esther, 
were  the  additions  which  we  still  find  there.*     Exeget- 

ical  scholia  were  inserted  here  and  there On  the 

other  hand,  much  was  omitted  from  the  text  of  the  ver- 


"  Credner,  Beit.  vol.  ii.  ch.  6,  7,  thinks  the  text  of  the  LXX.  used  by  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  had  often  been  corrected  in  the  Messianic  passages,  to  make  it 
conform  to  the  original,  and  probably  by  a  Christian  hand.  Similar  readings 
aro  found  earlier  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  in  Barnabas,  Clem- 
ent of  Rome,  and  otliers. 

*   Origen,  Ep.  ad  Alricauus,  p.  IG,  sqq. 


^45,  «.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  167 

sioii  which  still  existed  in  the  Hebrew.  Much,  says 
Origeii,  is  found  in  the  Hebrew  Job,  which  is  wanting 
in  the  Alexandrian  version.  Sometimes  three  or  four, 
sometimes  fourteen  or  nineteen  lines  are  wanting. 
Much,  also,  had  been  transposed ;  in  Jeremiah,  the 
whole  book  of  prophecies  against  foreign  states,  and  then 
again  some  parts  of  this  had  changed  places.  In  Exo- 
dus, a  whole  series  of  chapters  (xxxiv.  8,  to  xxxix.)  were 
huddled  together,  like  the  Sibyl's  leaves.  In  fine,  ac- 
cording to  the  testimony  of  some  of  the  Fathers,  the 
Jews  had  falsified  the  Pentateuch  in  their  polemic  zeal, 
where  it  favored  the  Christians.     But  this  is  doubtful, 

for,  while  other  proof  is  wanting,  Origen  and  Jerome 

knew  nothing  of  it,  and  it  is  well  known  how  ready  the 
Fathers  were  to  charge  their  opponents  with  falsifying 
the  Bible."]" 

By  comparing  the  text  with  the  Hebrew  original  and 
with  the  other  Greek  versions,  Origen  undertook  to 
amend  the  text,  not  so  much  with  a  view  to  criticism  as 
to  render  the  work  more  suitable  for  exegetical  use. 

He  had  in  part  a  controversial  design  ;  for  he  says, 
"  This  I  say,  that  I  do  not  weary  with  searching  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  comparing  all  our  copies  with 
theirs,  and  noticing  the  differences  between  them.  And 
if  it  is  not  improper  to  say  so,  we  have  done  it  according 
to  our  ability.  We  have  sought  for  their  meaning  in  all 
the  editions,  and  in  all  their  various  readings,  that,  as  far 
as  possible,  we  might  be  able  to  interpret  the  Seventy, 
not,  however,  that  we  might  seem  to  produce  something 
new,  which  differed  from  the  version  of  the  church,  and 
thus  furnish  an  excuse  for  those  who  seek  an  occasion, 
and  wish  to  condemn  the  general  opinion,  and  to  find 

"  EiMwrn,  §  167.     [See,  also,  his  Repert.  vol.  i.  p.  152.     Owen's  Inquiry 
on  the  present  State  of  the  LXX. ;  Oxford,  1769.] 


168  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [§  45,  «. 

fault  with  common  affairs.  We  have  taken  this  pains  that 
we  may  not  be  ignorant  of  the  Scriptures,  so  that,  when 
contending  with  the  Jews,  we  may  not  urge  upon  them 
passages  not  found  in  their  copies,  and  may  use,  in  com- 
mon with  them,  what  they  contain,  even  if  it  is  not  in 
our  books.  Our  preparation  in  this  undertaking  has 
been  such  as  even  they  will  not  despise  ;  nor,  as  their 
wont  is,  ^vi\\  they  now  laugh  at  the  believers  among 
the  Gentiles,  as  if  they  were  ignorant  of  the  truth  as  it 
exists  in  their  writings."" 

In  accomplishing  this  plan,  Origen  made  a  great  work, 
which  is  commonly  called  the  Hexapla.  Epiphanius 
says,  "  And  at  this  time  he  composed  the  Hexapla,  and 
he  placed  the  two  columns  of  the  Hebrew  of  one  inter- 
pretation in  parallel  lines,  opposite  to  one  another,  and 

called  it  the  sixfold  books For  the  Greek  alone  are 

fourfold,  where  the  version  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  the 
Seventy,  and  Theodotion,  are  put  together.  These  four 
columns  added  to  the  two  Hebrew  columns  are  called 
the  Hexapla.  If  the  fifth  and  sixth  versions  are  added, 
they  are  called,  accordingly,  the  Ociapla.'''"' 

Epist.  ad  Afric.  p.  16.  See  Jahi,  vol.  i.  p.  KM :  Tuma  de  <jp>//«,  ov-/^ 
oxrqj  7QV  igswaf  xul  rag  xuiu  ' lovdulovg  yQucpag,  ytal  naaag  jug  r^fiere- 
Qug  lalg  iyeinov  avyxQiisii',  teal  6g5:v  jug  ev  avTulg  diacpOQdg-  el  fir^ 
(fOQTixov  yovv  eIjieIv,  inl  nolv  tovto,  uaij  dvfa/nig,  nsnon'^xafiey  yv/ivu- 
^ovTSg  aiiiibv  xbv  povv  eV  Tidaaig  lulg  ixSoaeav  y.al  jalg  Siaq.ooulg  uviCor, 
ftST&  lov  nooihg  fm)J.ov  daxelf  ir^v  tg/tiji'sluv  iwi'  6,  a'a  f.n\  ji  Tiagu/cxQdcTiFii' 
doxolijuFv  Tulg  inu  luv  oigarbv  ixxhjalutg,  y.al  nnoqjuaeig  didiofjcp  joig  'CrjTOv- 
uiv  dqoQftag,  WiXovai  jovg  if  /jiaa  uvxoqxyiVTElv  xul  r(bv  dtuqutirn/nstun'  ii' 
TU)  Koii{a  yaii^yoQeli"  d.(TKov^iFi'  ds  fxr^  uyvoelv  y.al  rug  nag'  ixsh'oig,  'Iru 
7T gog  'lovSaloug  diaXeybnevoi,  fiii  7igoq>igu)/ief  aijoTg  t&  fii^  xelf/sra  ev 
roig  (j.vTtyg6.(fioig  avxv>v,  xnl  "va  avyxgrjuwfieda  roTg  (pcgofiivoig  nag'  ixel- 
roig,  eI  xttl  iv  totg  ■fj/uerigoig  ov  xeitui,  ^i^Xloig'  joiavirjg  ydcg  oiarjg  t'l/jiov 
If.  ngog  avrovg  iv  raig  tTjTi^aecri  nagaaxevrig,  ov  xuTaq^gopr'iaovair ,  oi'J' 
cbc;  sdog  aiiioig,  yeldaofTui,  lovg  dmb  jwv  idvwv  niaiEvovTug,  &g  t'  dXifif^ 
nag'  avrolg  dfayEyga/nfiiru  dyroovvTag. 

*  Epiphanius,  De  Pond,  et  Mens.  c.  18,  19:   "Die  xul   lu   i^anka,  xul 


^  45,  «.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIOiNS.  169 

So  Eusebiiis  says,  "  Having  collected  all  these  ver- 
sions together,  and  divided  them  into  sentences,  and 
arranged  them  opposite  one  another  in  parallel  columns, 
with  the  Hebrew  text,  he  left  us  the  present  copies  of 
the  Hexapla,  as  it  is  called.  In  a  separate  ivork  called 
the  Teirapla,  he  collected  the  edition  of  Aquila,  Symma- 
chus,  and  Theodotion,  with  that  of  the  Seventy."" 


rug  dvo  T(bt>  ^ E^Qu'ixw)'    aellSug    d.i'xiXQv  ix    7TaQa}.l-t'iXov    ftiug    iQ/ii>]>'cl(xg 

ngug  i<]v  kiiQui'  (jvridijy.e,  t^u7r).ci;  tccj  (^l^Xovg  dpojudtaag TsToanXa 

yuo  slat-  ju  'Ellrjiuxdi,  orup  ai  rod  'Axvla  xul  ^vfifi<x)(OV  xul  Twr  6  xul 
QeoSoilMVog  iQfirjvslat  avvTEiayfiivav  5)(Ti.  Twv  leaauoMV  de  tovtmp 
aeXlSujv  TuTg  dval  ruig  'E^gaixuTg  avi'ufpdsiauiv ,  L^anXu  xuXeliui.  'Ediv 
de  xixl  nifiTTTij  xal  r^  exTTj  kquTjveia  avvucpdibavp,  uxoXovdiog  Tovroig  dx- 
TunXa  xu)i£lTai. 

"  J^usehius,  Hist  Eccl.  vi.  IG:  Taviug  di  inuaag  ini  lavidv  avvuyuyCiii', 
dtsldjf  j£  noog  xoilot',  xul  ufTi7Ta(judeig  (ji.l).i\).utg  fiejCc  xul  avj7]g  jijg 
'Ei^ijuluiy  {Jr]tiEnhaeoi>g,  T(i  TWf  ).eyofj.ivotv  L^utiImv  I'^iiXv  ufilyQuwu  xutu- 
hbXoi.nev,  iiilwg  Ti^f  'yfxvXu  xul  ^ujufidj^ov  xal  GioSoilMVog  Bxdoaiv  liftu 
jri  raf  i>  ii'  jols  TSTQunXoTg  inixuTuaxevuaug.  From  this  and  other  traces 
in  the  inscriptions  and  scholia  of  Greek  MSS.,  (e.  g.,  the  scholium  in  Cod. 
Coislin.  to  Ps.  Ixxxvi.,  fi^\Ti]o  ^(.Cov  to  (^w)  xuiu  nQoadr\xriv  exeuo  Eig  xr^p 
tCoi'  6  £*'  TW  TEToaaFXldu),  iv  Sh  to)  '  (JXTuafkldu)  fii)  t>j  ^luyf  f^yovi'  dl/u 
70V  ^u,  [see  this  and  others  in  Hody,  p.  595,])  it  lias  been  justly  concluded 
that  the  Tetrapla  was  a  separate  work.  See  Valesius^s  note  on  Eusebius, 
1.  c.  Montfaucon,  Prselim.  ad  Hexapla,  p.  9.  Hody,  1.  c.  Huet,  Origeniana, 
lib.  iii.  2,  sect.  iv.  §  4,  p.  258.  Stroth,  in  his  German  version  of  Eusebius,  1.  c. 
Bauer,  Einleit.  152.  Critica  sac.  p.  262.  Beiiholdt,  p.  547,  and  Holmes, 
Prasf.  ad  vol.  i.  of  his  edition  of  the  LXX.  While,  on  the  other  hand, 
EkWiorn,  §  169,  Eiclistadi,  ad  Mor.  p.  137,  and  Jlugusti,  Einleit  §  66,  main- 
tain it  was  merely  a  difference  in  the  title,  which  is  true  as  it  respects  tlic 
Hexapla  and  Octapla. 

It  is  uncertain  when  Origen  published  the  Tetrapla.  See  Hody,  p.  603, 
and  Montfaucon,  p.  9.  Instead  of  InixaiuaxEudcmg,  it  is  sometimes  read 
i.iiaxevdiCKxg  in  the  passage  of  Eusebius.  The  former  reading  implies  that 
he  added  the  Tetrapla  as  a  separate  work  to  the  Hexapla ;  the  latter,  that 
he  first  composed  the  Tetrapla,  and  then,  after  the  discovery  of  the  5th, 
Gth,  and  7th  versions,  compiled  the  Hexapla  and  Octapla.  Hody,  1.  c,  Us- 
serius,  and  Petavius,  (note  to  Epiplianius,  p.  404,  sq.,)  tliink  the  Hexapla  and 
Octapla  were  different.  See  Hody,  1.  c,  and  Montfaucon,  p.  13,  who  opposes 
him.  The  term  Enneapla  never  occurs.  Montfaucon,  p.  8.  Huet,  ubi 
sup.  p.  259. 

VOL.  I.  22 


170  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [§  45,  «. 

[He  spent  twenty-eight  years  in  preparations  for  this 
great  work.  During  this  time,  he  travelled  into  the 
East  to  collect  materials,  and  was  fortunate  enough  to 
discover  six  Greek  versions,  —  those  of  Aquila,  Symma- 
chus,  Theodotion,  and  the  three  anonymous  translators. 
The  latter  he  discovered  in  the  year  228  A.  C.  Three 
years  after,  he  came  to  Caesarea,  and  commenced  the 
work.  Ambrosius  supplied  him  with  money,  and  he  em- 
ployed seven  scribes,  seven  readers,  (librarii,)  and  some 
young  women,  who  were  skilful  caligraphists.]" 

In  this  work  he  wrote  down  the  Hebrew  text  in  He- 
brew letters  ;  the  same  in  Greek  letters  ;  *  the  version  of 
Aquila ;  that  of  Symmachus  ;  of  the  Seventy  ;  and  in 
some  books,  also,  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  versions. 
All  these  were  placed  in  parallel  columns. 

He  corrected  the  text  of  the  Seventy  from  the  other 
versions,  especially  from  that  of  Theodotion,  so  that  from 
this  he  restored  what  was  wanting,  marking  it  with  an 
asterisk,  and  naming  its  source.  He  suffered  what  was 
redundant  to  remain,  but  marked  it  with  an  obelisk. 

Origen  explains  himself  on  this  point,  and  says,  "  We 
undertook  to  heal  the  disagreement  between  the  copies 
of  the  Old  Testament,  by  using  the  other  versions,  as^  a 
standard ;  for,  by  means  of  the  other  versions,  making  a 
decision  respecting  the  passages  which  were  rendered 
doubtful  by  the  disagreement  among  the  copies  of  the 
Seventy,  we  preserved  a  continued  harmony  between 
them ;  and  we  marked  with  an  obelisk  passages  which 
were  not  in  the  Hebrew,  not  venturing  to  remove  them 
entirely  from  the  text."' 

"  See  Eichhorn,  §  1G7. 

''  See  Ernesti,  Opusc.  Phil,  p,  302.     Morus,  ed.  EicMadt,  p.  136. 
'   Ongen,   Com.  in  Mat  torn.  xv.    0pp.   iii.  p.   672 :     Tt)v  ftiv    olv  in 
loTg  urTi]'Q<x(fOi;  iT^g  nahtia;  diudtiy.i,g  diaqvnlav ivga/iBi'  l&araadui, 


^  45,  «.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  171 

But  Jerome  speaks  still  more  clearly  :  "And  therefore 
we  took  care  to  correct  all  the  books  of  the  old  covenant, 
which  that  adamantine  scholar  had  arranged  in  his  Hex- 
apla,  —  contained  in  the  librarj'^  at  Csesarea,  —  by  means 
of  those  authentic  copies  of  it  in  which  the  Hebrew 
words  are  written  in  their  proper  characters,  and  also  in 
Greek  letters  in  an  adjoining  column.  Aquila  and  Sym- 
machus,  and  the  Seventy,  and  Theodotion,  hold  their 
proper  place  in  it.  But  some  books,  and  those  especial- 
ly which  are  in  verse  in  the  Hebrew,  have  three  other 
versions  added  to  them,  which  they  call  the  Jjfth,  sixth, 
and  seventh,  following  their  authority,  without  the  names 
of  their  authors." 

And  again:  "And  Origen  not  only  prepared  copies 
of  four  versions,  writing  the  words  of  each  opposite  one 
another,  so  that  one  which  disagreed  from  the  rest  might 
be  corrected  by  the  others  which  agreed  together,  but  he 
did  this  also,  which  is  a  work  of  greater  boldness,  —  he 
mingled  Theodotion's  version  with  that  of  the  Seventy, 
designating  with  asterisks  places  where  something  was 
previously  wanting,  and  with  obelisks  what  seemed  su- 
perfluous."" 

XQiT7]glo)  ;(g7ja(jcjU6voi,  TuTg  Xoinuig  ixdoaeaiv  jav  yag  dficpi^aXXofiivMV 
naou  Tolg  6,  dia  iGtv  dPTiyg&qiMV  Siaq)0)vlav  r^v  xqlaiv  noiriad/iiBvoi  dno 
i(j)f  Xomoii'  ixdoaeMv,  to  ovvadov  Ixelvaig  icpvXd^a/uer,  xal  iiva  fttv 
(a^eXlaa^iev  iv  tw  "^E^ga'Cxw  ^arj  xslfisvac  ov  loX^iriaavjeg  uvru  ndnvja  nsqiE- 
Xeii'. 

'^  Jerome,  Com.  in  Tit.  iii. :  Unde  nobis  curse  fuit,  omnes  veteris  Legia 
libros,  quos  vir  Adamantius  in  Hexapla  digesserat,  de  Csesariensi  Bibliothe- 
ca  descriptos,  ex  ipsis  authenticis  emendare,  in  quibus  ipsa  Hebraea  propriis 
sunt  characteribua  verba  descripta,  et  Graecis  litteris  tramite  expressa  vicino. 
Aquila  etiam  et  Symmachus,  Septuaginta  et  Theodotio  suum  ordineni 
tenent.  Normulli  vero  libri,  et  maxime  hi,  qui  apud  Hebrieos  versu  cora- 
positi  sunt,  tres  alias  editiones  additas  habent,  quam  Quintam  et  Sextam  et 
Septimam  translationem  vocant,  auctoritat6m  sine  nominibus  interpretum 
consequutas. 

Prtef.  in  Paralip. :    Et  certe  Origenea  non  solum  exemplaria  composuit 


172  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^45,05. 

The  following  table  shows  the  manner  m  which  the 
several  parts  were  arranged:  — 

quatuor  editionum,  e  regione  singula  verba  describens,  ut  unus  dissentiens 
statim  cceteris  inter  se  consentientibus  arguatur ;  sed  quod  majoris  audaciiB 
est,  in  editione  LXX.  Theodotionis  editionem  miscuit :  asteriscis  designans 
quae  minus  ante  fuerant,  at  virgulis,  quae  ex  superfluo  videbantur  apposita. 

Montfaucon,  1.  c.  p.  10,  says,  "  It  can  be  proved  by  many  passages,  tliat,  in 
his  Tetrapla,  Origen  did  not  correct  the  text  of  the  LXX.,  but  applied  his 
healing  hand  to  it  afterwards,  when  he  composed  his  Hexapla  and  Odapla, 
Compare  the  scholia  on  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  1.  c.  Holmes  is  of  the  same  opinion,  1.  c. 
sect.  4,  5. 

Epiphanius,  1.  c,  gives  the  reason  why  the  LXX.  stood  between  Sym- 
machus  and  Theodotion.  "  Origen,  perceiving  how  accurate  the  LXX. 
were,  put  their  version  in  the  midst,  and  the  others  on  either  side." 

On  the  use  of  the  asterisks  (#)  and  obelisks  (  — )  see  Mo7itfmicon,  1.  c.  p. 
38,  sqq.  Carpzov,  p.  580.  Holmes,  sect.  6,  7.  The  meaning  of  the  lemnisks 
(  -f- )  and  the  hypolemnisks  ( -7- )  is  doubtful.    Mont/aucon,  p.  40,  sqq. 


^45,  a.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  173 


I 


tr 


ti    ^    D    rf  S 

vj*    VI        _r    r^    ^    af  _rr    J    Cj    »    P   c- 


X    •/© 


-s   •« 


S       R 


,-    o 


3i   S  ^  'o    'm  f! 


■fe 


S   y 


2         ft-  s?. 


-S.  ^    m     o    ^-    o    'O    -^ft    C 

="  ■:*    S:    ^    2  ^o    '" 


-ft       '-  -ft   ft-  5 


£-   KS   ?. 


2  -=*'  5  -=*' 


R     2? 


_    5     = 


-I.        S    -<  ^t  S   e>  S»  "^  g^ 

^^      5  f  I  -.  i  N  s-  I 


174  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [§  45,  a. 

[Origen's  design  was  to  revise  the  Alexandrian  ver- 
sion, not  to  restore  the  Hebrew  original ;  therefore  it  does 
not  appear  that  he  made  any  collation  of  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts. But  in  the  Pentateuch,  he  compared  the  He- 
brew^  text  with  the  Samaritan,  and  marked  the  differ- 
ence. He  prefaced  the  work  with  a  history  of  eacli 
version ;  prefixed  iwolegomena  to  each  book,  and  added 
exegetical  and  critical  notes  in  the  margin.  Fragments 
of  the  prolegomena  are  still  found  in  the  Syriac  Hexapla ; 
some  of  the  notes  are  met  with  in  Epiphanius,  and  on 
the  margin  of  manuscripts  of  the  Seventy,  but  no  frag- 
ment of  the  history  of  the  versions  has  yet  been  dis- 
covered.] " 

This  voluminous  work  was  the  result  of  many  years' 
labor.  Montfaucon '' says,  It  is  very  probable  that  Ori- 
gen  turned  his  hand  to  compose  the  Hexapla  after  he 
had  found  the  sixth  Greek  version.  He  found  this,  as 
Epiphanius  says,  in  the  seventh  year  of  Alexander  Se- 
verus,  that  is,  A.  C.  228.  And  since  from  that  time  to 
the  year  231,  when  he  went  to  Caesarea,  he  had  not 
time  and  opportunity  for  prosecuting  so  arduous  an 
affair,  —  the  work  of  the  Hexapla,  therefore,  was  laid 
aside  till  231,  when  he  continued  it  at  Csesarea. 

Epiphanius  says,  "  Now^  in  the  seventh  year  (of  Anto- 
ninus   Caracalla)  the  books   of   the  fifth  version    were 

found After  him,  Alexander,  the  son  of  Mamsea, 

reigned  thirteen  years.  About  the  middle  of  this  time, 
the  sixth  version  was  found."  It  is  known  that  Origen 
flourished  from  the  time  of  Decius  to  that  of  Gallus  and 

"  See  Eichhorii,  §  169.  Brum's  Account  of  the  Syriac  Hexapla.  in  MS., 
in  the  Ambrosian  library,  at  Milan,  in  Eichhorri's  Repert.  vol.  iii.  p.  166, 
eqq. 

*  L.  c.  p.  13,  sqq. 

"  See  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  16. 


^45,  «.]  THE    CREEK    VERSIONS.  175 

Volusianiis,  and  beyond  it And  during  the  perse- 
cution of  Decius Origen   himself  suffered  much, 

but  did  not  attain  the  end  of  martyrdom.     He  came  to 

Cassarea, and  dwelt  a   short  time  at  Jerusalem ; 

then  going   to  Tyre,  he    remained    there   twenty-eight 
years,   as    the    story  goes.  ......  He    interpreted    the 

Scriptures,  and,  at   this  time,  composed  the   Hexapla."" 

["The  Hexapla,  wrought  out  with  diligence,  and  com- 
posed according  to  such  sound  principles,  lay  unused  for 
fifty  years,  probably  because  the  cost  of  a  book,  which 
must  have  been  forty  or  fifty  volumes  strong,  was  greater 
than  a  private  man  could  pay,  and  perhaps  its  destruc- 
tion began  soon  after  its  completion.  The  learned  dili- 
gence of  Origen  would  have  remained  without  a  recom- 

"  Epiphanius,  1.  c.  ch.  18  :  'Ev  ds  toj  i^dofta  aiiov  {^AvtmvIvov  Kuqux&X- 

kov)  iiEi,  F.^iobOfjoav  ul  ^lB).Oi  ttjc  n^/j.nT7jg  ^xddaeojg Meiu  t)e  toD- 

Tov    i^aalXevaev  'u4M^ui>dgog,    6    Muuatag  naig,  tTtj  ly .     ' Ev    iiiaa  iiij*' 

/(j^votf  TOino)f  evQ^di]  exn/  exdoaig 'Ei'  de  roTg  ^^Qdi'oig  dsxlov  'Jloi- 

yivijg  evi'MolCeTO,  uno    ^^govov  ^exlav  dxuuaug,  I'uig  FuXkov  xul    (JvoXou- 

(Tiurov  xu)  iniy.eti'u ' Enl  da  lov  yeyoiuTOg  Stoiyfwv  lov  ^txiou 

xitl  (xviug  ' Slotylvi^g  noXhx  nerrot'OCog,  etg  i^log  rod  ftuQTvglov  ovx  HpOuaet'. 
' Eldihi'  t)£  elg  KutauoFiuy  n)f  ^TQ('xTun'og,  xul  diuTQiifiug  fig  'IeQoa6Xvua 
Xq6fOv  dUyoi',  ejia  ikdihv  slg   TuQOf  inl  etij  xj],  wg  6  X6yog  e/ei,  ttj*'  j^tf 

rto/uTftar  ii'jjaxelTO,  lug  dk  ygucfdig  T|^//»j»'fi/oe*',  ore  xul  id  i^unlu 

auridtiXFi: 

See  Petavius,  on  tliis  passage,  p.  403,  sq.  In  the  reign  of  Gallus,  (A.  C. 
254,)  Origen  died,  in  the  G9th  year  of  his  age,  as  Eusebius  says,  (vii.  1.) 
Jerome,  in  Catal.  Script,  writes,  "  Epiphanius  says  lie  flourished  from  the 
time  of  Decius  to  that  of  Galkis  and  Vohisianus,  which  is  too  sliort,  since 
they  did  nut  reign  more  than  two  years  and  four  months.  So  for  Decius 
we  should  say  Severus." 

It  is  not  correct  that  he  resided  twenty-eight  years  at  Tyre.  Hiiet,  Origo- 
niana,  p.  15.  This  would  make  him  commence  the  Hexapla  at  Caesarea,  in 
Cappadocia,  and  finish  it  in  Tyre.  lb.  p.  17.  Compare  p.  269,  sq.  But  before 
this,  in  his  Epistle  ad  Afric,  which  was  written  in  Nicomedia,  he  liimself 
refers  to  the  Hexapla.  It  is  not  improbable  that  it  was,  at  least,  begun,  even 
at  Alexandria.  See  De  Wette,  art,  Hexapla,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber''s  En- 
cyclop. 


176  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^  45,  «. 

pense,  if  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus,  about  fifty  years  after 
Origan's  death,  had  not  brought  it  from  the  corner 
where  it  lay  hidden,  at  Tyre,  and  placed  it  at  Caesarea, 
in  the  library  of  Pamphilus  the  Martyr.  We  have  not 
the  remotest  trace  to  show  that  the  whole  work,  with 
all  its  columns,  scholia,  and  dissertations,  was  ever  cop- 
ied. Jerome  found  it  in  the  library  of  Pamphilus  the 
Martyr,  at  Caesarea ;  but,  after  him,  no  one  seems  to 
have  thought  of  it ;  and  it  is  conjectured  that,  when 
Caesarea  was  taken  by  the  Arabs,  about  653,  this  mon- 
ument of  the  most  ancient  critical  diligence  perished 
with  the  well-known  library. 

"  But  Pamphilus  and  Eusebius  published  the  columns 

containing  the  revised  text  of  the  Seventy, and 

probably  added  passages  from  the  other  ancient  versions, 
and  some  of  Origen's  scholia.  We  are  to  thank  them 
for  what  yet  remains  of  this  great  work."]  " 

Jerome  speaks  of  it  as  a  work  of  the  greatest  cost  and 
labor,  and  says  it  was  used  in  some  places.  He  thus 
speaks  of  it  in  a  letter  to  Augustine  :  "  If  you  wish  to  be 
a  true  lover  of  the  Seventy,  do  not  read  those  passages 
marked  with  asterisks,  but  remove  them  from  the  vol- 
umes, that  you  may  prove  yourself  a  friend  to  what  is 
genuine  and  old.  If  you  do  this,  you  will  be  compelled 
to  condemn  the  libraries  of  all  the  churches  ;  for  scarcely 
a  copy  can  be  found  that  does  not  contain  them."* 

"  Eichhorn,  §  172. 

''  Jtrome,  Prsef.  in  Libr.  Jos. :  Greecorum  itu-nlolg,  quae  et  sumtu  et  la- 
bore  maxiino  indigent  Praef.  in  Paralip. :  Mediae  inter  has  (Alexandrinam 
et  Constantinopolin)  provincite  Patestinos  legunt  codices,  quos  ab  Origene 
elaborates  Eusebius  et  Pamphilus  vulgaverunt.  Ep.  74,  ad  Augustinum,  vol. 
ii.  p.  626 :  Vis  amator  esse  verus  LXX.  interpretum,  non  legas  ea,  quae  sub 
asteriscis  sunt :  imo  rade  de  voluminibus,  ut  veterum  te  fautorem  probes. 
Quod  si  feceris,  omnium  Ecclesiarum  bibliothecas  damnare  cogeris.  Vix 
enim  unus  aut  alter  inveniatur  liber,  qui  ista  non  habeat,    Comp.  Proem. 


^45,6.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  177 

[§  43, 6. 

FURTHER  CORRUPTION   OF  THE   ALEXANDRIAN    VERSION. 

After  the  time  of  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus,  the  hex- 
aplary  text  u^as  copied,  with  its  critical  marks  and  the 
fragments  of  other  versions  in  the  margin.  But  this 
work  was  badly  performed,  and  innumerable  errors  arose. 
The  critical  marks  were  confounded  ;  an  obelisk  was 
taken  for  an  asterisk,  and  the  reverse.  The  names  of 
tlie  different  versions  were  misplaced ;  sometimes  the 
critical  marks  were  omitted,  and  the  several  versions 
were    confounded  together.     Overwise  transcribers  in- 

Com.  in  Daniel.  Schol.  in  Psalterium  Grsec.  Vatic,  ad  Ps.  12 :  Oiix  exsno 
nuQ'  oiSsvl  it'  TsTQucrsXlda,  oiire  iv  m  Evcre^lov  tow  JTctft(fl).ou,  ovtb 
iv  T(5  'E^Qtt'iHw.     Hody,  p.  260.     See  Montfaucon,  p.  43,  sqq. 

A  collection  of  the  hexaplary  fragments  was  first  made  by  Petr.  Morinus, 
in  the  Sixtine  edition  of  the  LXX. ;  Rom.  1587,  (which  is  falsely,  though 
commonly,  ascribed  to  Flnminius  JVohilius  ;  see  Eichstadt,  1.  c.  p.  13.5  ;)  tlien 
by  Jo.  Driisius,  Vet.  Interpret  Grsec.  in  totmn  V.  T.,&c.  Fragmenta  coll.  Vers, 
et  Notis  illustr. ;  Arnh.  1662,  4to. ;  by  Martianay,  in  vol.  ii.  of  Jiis  edition  of 
Jerome ;  Par.  1699 ;  by  Montfaucon,  Hexapl.  Origenis  qua3  supersunt  miil- 
tis  Partibus  auctiora,  qiiam  a  Flam.  Nobilio  (a  P.  Morino)  et  J.  Drusio  edita 
fuerint :  ex  MSS.  et  ex  Libris  editis  emit  et  Notis  illustravit  Accedunt 
Opuscula  quaedam  Origenis  Anecdota  et  ad  Calcem  Lexicon  Hebr.  ex  Vete- 
rum  Interpretationibus  concinn.  itemque  Lex.  Gr.  etc.  tom.  i.  ii. ;  Par.  1714, 
fol.  Hexapl.  Origenis,  quae  supersunt  auctiora  et  emendatiora,  quam  a  Flam. 
Nobilio,  J.  Drusio,  et  tandem  a  Bern,  de  Montfaucon  concinnata  fuerant,  ed. 
Notisque  illustr.  C.  F.  Bahrdt,  pt.  i.  ii. ;  Lips.  1769,  1770,  8vo.  Compare 
/.  Fi-.  Fischer,  Proluss.  de  Verss.  Grsec.  Libr.  V.  T.,  &c.  p.  34.  Chrestoma- 
thia  hexap.  adornata  a  J.  G.  Trendelenburg ;  Lips.  1794.  See  the  more  re- 
cent contributions  to  this  collection  by  Doderlein,  in  Eichhorn's  Repert  vol. 
i.  and  vi.  Scharfenberg,  Duse  Specimina,  &c. ;  Lips.  1776 — 1778.  Maithui, 
in  Eichhorn's  Repert.  vol.  iv.  See  other  works  on  this  subject  in  Rosen- 
tniiUer,  1.  c.  p.  465,  sqq.  See  J.  F.  Schleusner,  Opuscula  crit.  ad  Vers.  Grsec. 
V.  T.  pertinentes ;  Lips.  1812.  See  an  attempt  to  restore  the  hexaplary 
text,  in  Jerem.  Vates  e  Versione  Judasorum  Alex,  ac  Reliquorum  Intt.  Gr. 
emend.  Notisque  crit.  illustr.  a  G.  L.  Spohn ;  Lips.  1794,  vol.  ii.  ed.  JFV.  A. 
Guil.  Spohi,  1824.     [See  Eichhorn,  AUg.  Bib.  vol.  vi.  p.  331,  sqq.] 

VOL.  I.  23 


178  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [<^  46. 

serted  passages  of  still  other  Greek  versions  in  the  mar- 
gin. From  this  corrupt  text,  the  citations  of  the  Seventy 
by  Fathers  who  lived  before  Origen,  have  been  correct- 
ed, and  they  are  thus  made  to  cite  an  author  they  never 
knew.  Philo  is  sometimes  made  to  quote  Aquila's  ver- 
sion. Justin  Martyr  has  been  corrected  from  interpo- 
lated copies  of  the  Seventy.]" 

§46. 

OTHER   CRITICAL   RECENSIONS. 

On  account  of  the  unreasonable  and  careless  use  of 
Origen's  critical  work,  new  corruptions  were  introduced 
into  the  text  of  the  Seventy.  For  this  reason,  Lucian 
(who  died  about  311  A.  C.)  and  Hesychius  undertook 
to  make  new  recensions  of  the  text  of  this  version. 
Their  works  came  into  public  use,  but  nothing  is  now 
left  of  them,  and  the  accounts  thereof  are  too  imperfect 
to  afford  the  critic  any  assistance. 

Suidas  says  of  Lucian,  that,  "  Seeing  the  sacred  books 
contained  much  which  was  not  authentic,  (for  many 
things  in  them  had  been  corrupted  by  time,  by  continual 
transcription,  and  also  by  some  wicked  men  ;  and  be- 
sides, they  who  favored  Hellenism  endeavored  to  pervert 
the  sense  of  the  books,  and  sowed  falsehood  in  them,) 
he  took  all  of  them  [which  he  could  obtain]  and  re- 
newed them  from  the  Hebrew  tongue,  in  which  he  was 

"•  [See  Eirhhorn,  §  173.  Jerome  complains  of  this  corruption,  Prffif.  I.  in 
Paralip. :  Si  LXX.  interpretum  pura  et  ut  ab  eis  in  Grsecum  versa  est  editio 

permanent ;  superflue  me impelleres,  ut  Hebraea  tibi  volumina  Latino 

sermone  transferrem nunc  vero  cum  pro  varietate   regionum  diversa 

lerantur  exemplaria,  et  gcrmana  ilia  antiquaque  translatio  corrupta  sit  atque 
violata,  nostri  arbitrii  putas,  aut  e  pluribus  judicare,  quod  verum  sit,  aut  no- 
vum opus  in  veteri  opere  cudere,  &c.] 


^46.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  179 

pretty  well  skilled,  and  bestowed  great  labor  upon  this 
recension."  Nicetas  says,  "  He  translated  the  Hebrew 
books  into  Greek."" 

Jerome  thus  speaks  of  Lucian's  work  :  "  I  briefly 
tell  you  this,  that  you  may  know  there  is  one  edition  [of 
the  Seventy]  which  Origen,  and  Eusebius  of  Caesarea, 
and  all  the  Greek  writers,  call  the  common,  and  generally 
used,  and  which  is  now  called  Lucian's  by  many  ;  and 
another  edition  of  the  Seventy,  which  is  found  in  the  hcx- 
aplary  manuscripts."  Again  he  says,  "  The  churches 
in  Alexandria  and  Egypt  cite  Hesychius  as  the  author 
of  their  recension  of  the  Seventy.  Those  in  Constan- 
tinople, and  as  far  as  Antioch,  approve  the  copies  of 
Lucian  the  Martyr.  The  provinces  which  lie  midway 
between  these,  make  use  of  the  Palestine  copies ;  and  so 
all    the   world   is   separated   into    this  triple   division."* 


"  Suidas,  sub  voce  ■ytovxiat'it;,  follows  Simeon  Metaphrastes,  and  says :  Outo; 
Tu,"  ifod,"  ^l8}.ov^  Idijjf  7To).i)  TO  vdOof  sladeiu/uii'ag,  joTitc  /o6iov  Xviit]- 
ruuifou  noi.hx  tw*'  sf  uvraTc,  xui  jiji  avye^ovg  (x<p'  htooiy  tig  £tfqu 
fiFT(t6i(Te(t)g,  :<(tl  f.tiv  toi  xul  iii'un'  ui'dguirroii'  rron/oojuTO))',  of  lov  'EXXtj- 
viajiwv  iTOoeaT'>\y.saav ,  nuondTQiipui  luf  iv  uiruTg  t'Ovv  Tietguaa/itii'mr  xul 
vToli  TO  xl3dijkov  ti'  TuvTuTg  aneiouvTutv  uviog  undaag  uvaXuSihr  ix  itj,' 
ESoatdog  irEvedauTO  y).wTT7jg,  ?]/'  xul  (xvTi)t'  i\no itiujxijjg  ig  ju  fiuXtmu 
^1',  Tr/iroi'  T-^  inttroQdihoei  TxXeXaroi'  fiaereyy.uuFrog.  .Wcete,  Proem.  Com. 
in  Psalm. :    Tug  'lovditwtv  ^iS).ovg  fig  ir^v  r^juFTtguf  dtulfSiv   tiejuTlO/jair. 

The  Synopsis,  and  Euthymnis,  (Com.  in  Psalm.,  cited  in  Ilody,  p.  626,  sq.,) 
are  of  the  same  opinion. 

*  Jerome,  Ep.  ad  Sunniam  et  Fretelam,  0pp.  ii.  p.  627:  In  quo  illud  brevi- 
ter  admoneo,  ut  sciatis  aliam  esse  editionem,  quam  Origenes  et  Caesar.  Eu- 
sebius omnesque  Grseciee  tractatores  xotf-qp,  i.  e.  communem,  appellant  atque 
vulgatam,  et  a  plerisque  nunc  Aoir/.mrog  dicitur;  aliam  LXX.  interpretum, 
quse  in  etw-T^-or,- codicibus  reperietur.  Ptcef.  inParalip. :  Alexandria  et 
^gyptus  in  LXX.  suis  Hesychium  laudat  autorem :  Constantinopolis  usque 
Antiochiam  Laciani  Martyris  exemplaria  probat.  Mediae  inter  hac  provin- 
cia  Palestinos  codices  legunt,  totusque  orbis  hac  inter  se  triferia  varietate 
compugnat. 


180  THE    GrvET'K    VERSIONS.  [^4(3. 

Holmes  thinks  the  Tetrapla  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the 
works  of  Liician  and  Hesjchius." 

It  seems  Basil  the  Great  merely  procured  correct 
copies  to  be  made ;  for  George  Syncellus  says,  "A  very 
correct  copy,  belonging  to  the  library  at  Csesarea,  fell 
into  my  hands,  and  in  the  superscription  it  was  said, 
that  the  great  and  divine  Basilius  had  compared  and 
revised  the  books  it  contained.'"'  [But  Basil's  recen- 
sion seems  to  have  been  made  for  his  own  private  use, 
and  was,  perhaps,  never  transcribed. 

Thus  it  seems  that,  in  the  time  of  .Jerome,  three  dif- 
ferent editions  of  the  Seventy  were  in  use  under  the 
sanction  of  the  several  churches,  and  with  their  author- 
ity, namely,  Origen's  Hexapla  in  Palestine,  the  text  of 
Hesychius  in  Egypt,  and  that  of  Lucian  in  Constantino- 
ple and  its  vicinity.  No  wonder  the  existing  manu- 
scripts have  come  down  to  us  with  so  many  corruptions. 
Eichhorn  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  original  text  might 
yet,  in  great  measure,  be  restored.  He  proposes  that 
the  citations  in  Philo,  Josephus,  and  the  Fathers,  the 
great  mass  of  manuscripts,  the  scholia  they  contain,  and 
the  Catenas,  should  all  be  compared  together.  The 
glossaries  of  Suidas  and  Plesychius,  with  tlie  various 
translations  of  the  Alexandrian  version,  would  aid  in  the 
work.] " 

"  //oZmfs,  1.  c.  sect.  8,  sqq.  See  Amersfoordt,  \.  c.  p.  IIS,  sqq.  Hiiet,  Or- 
igen.  lib.  iii.  cli.  ii.  sect.  4,  §  10,  p.  261,  g-ives  tiiem  the  hexaplary  marks,  in 
which  lie  follows  Jerome's  Ep.  74,  ad  August. 

*  Georg.  Syncellus,  Chronog.  p.  203:  'Ei>  h'l  urnyQucfa  Xluv  i^TcoiSotttiio 
ix  iTq;  iv  Kuiattnela  tTj,-  Kun:ja6oy.lag  iJ-dot'Tt  fi;  i/ti  HiBhodi\xti;,  ii'  u 
xul  ini^yiyQttnro,  Co;  6  fjiyng  xitl  x)^[log  Buali.eiog  T'i,  i^  (Of  ixiTt'o  u:is- 
ygdicpri,  urii[iu)Mi>  dtogdihfJUTO  ^i^Uu.  See  Amersfoordt,  ].  c  p.  21.  Carp- 
zov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  53.3. 

"  Eichhorn,  §  17G,  sqq, 


^47.]  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  181 

§47. 

MANUSCRIPTS   AND   EDITIONS. 

Since  these  different  critical  recensions  contributed 
more  to  the  corruption  than  to  the  improvement  of  the 
text,  in  the  time  of  Jerome  it  had  fallen  into  a  very 
lamentable  state.  Thus  he  says,  "  The  common  edi- 
tion is  different  in  different  places,  all  the  world  over." 
And  again,  "  It  is  corrupted  every  where  to  meet  the 
views  of  the  place  and  time,  or  the  caprice  of  the  tran- 
scribers."" Our  present  manuscripts  represent  it  in  this 
corrupt  state.  No  one  of  these  recensions  is  found  pure  ; 
for  they  have  flowed  together,  and  become  mixed  also 
with  the  other  Greek  versions.*     Different   and  some- 

"  Jerome,  Prsef.  in  Paralip,  Proem,  in  lib.  xvi.  Com.  in  Jes.  Ep.  ad  Sunniam 
et  Fretelam,  Opp.  ii.  p.  627.  See  above,  p.  179,  h.  Masivs,  Annot.  in  Vers. 
Gr.  Josua?,  p.  125.  Jo.  Morinus,  Antiq.  Eccles.  orient  p.  273 ;  ed.  Lond. 
Is.  Voss.  Prsef.  ad  Append,  ad  Librum  de  LXX.  Intt  Montfaucon,  Praelim. 
c.  4,  §  5,  p.  43.  Grabe,  Praef.  ad  ed.  LXX.  tom.  ii.  c.  1,  prop.  13.  Epist.  ad 
Mill.  p.  47.  Slroth,  Catalogues  of  MSS.  of  tlie  LXX.  in  Eichkorn's  Rep.  vol. 
V.  p.  104,  sq.  Holmes,  Prolegg.  ad  ed.  LXX,  See  Amersfoordt,  1.  c.  p.  114,  sqq., 
p.  133,  aqq.  Hody,  p.  G37,  sq.  Jahii,  Einl.  vol.  i.  p.  171,  sqq.  Catalogues 
of  MSS.  are  given  by  Stroth,  in  Rep.  vok.  v.,  viii.,  xi.  Holmes,  1.  c.  cap.  2,  3. 
Facsimile  of  the  Cod.  Alex. :  VeL  Test.  Gr.  e.  Cod.  MS.  Alex,  qui  Londini 
in  Biblioth.  Musei  Britann.  asservatur,  Typis  ad  Similitudinem  Cod.  Scrip- 
turte  fideliter  descriptum.  Cur.  Henr.  Hai-veji  Baber,  vol.  i.  1823,  gr.  fol. 

''  See  Le  Long,  Bib.  sac.  ed.  Masch,  vol.  ii.  p.  262.  Rosenmuller,  Hand- 
buch,  vol.  ii.  p.  279.  Grabe,  Prolegg.  ad  ed.  LXX.  i.  3.  Lamb.  Bos,  Pro- 
legg.  ad  ed.  LXX.  Fubricius,  Bib.  Grtec.  vol.  iii.  p.  67.3,  sqq.,  ed.  Harks, 
Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  533,  sqq.  Amersfoordl,  1.  c.  p.  23,  sqq.  Moms,  ed. 
Eichstadt,  p.  103,  sqq. 

There  are  four  important  editions,  with  their  descendants,  namely  :  — 

I.  Bibl.  Polyglott ;  Complut.  1514 — 1517,  fol.  On  the  critical  character 
of  this  text,  see  Lamb.  Bos,  1.  c.  ch.  2.  On  the  contrary,  Eichhoiii,  Einleit. 
§  181.  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  i.  p.  851.  Holmes,  1.  c.  ch.  4.  1.  Bibi.  Polyglott. ; 
Antverp.  (Regia,)  1572,  fol.  2.  Polyglott.  Bertrami  (Vatabli,  Heidelb.,)  with 
the  various  editions :  Ex  offic.  Sanctandreana ;  1588,  fol.  Ex  off.  Sanctandr. ; 
1587,  fol.     Ex.  oft*.   Commelin.;  1599,  fol.     Ex  off.  Commel.;   1616,  fol. 


182  THE    GREEK    VERSIONS.  [^  ^^ ' 

times  contradictory  judgments  have  been  passed  upon 
the  two  chief  manuscripts,  the  Vatican  and  Alexan- 
drian. 


3.  Bibl.  Polyglott.   Wolderi ;  Hamb,  1590,  fol.     4.  Bibl.  Polyglott. ;    Par. 
1645,  fol. 

II.  Bibl.  Graec.  Venet.  in  ^Edib.  Aldi  et  AridreiB  Soceri ;  1518,  fol.  min.  See 
Lamb.  Bos,  1.  c,  and  Eichhoiii,  1.  c.  1.  Argentorati  ap  Wolph.  Cephalffium? 
(cur.  Loniceri  ;)  1526,  4  vols.  8vo.;  ib.  1529,  8vo.  2.  Basil,  per  Joa.  Hervag. 
(cum   Prsef.  Piiil.  Melancth. ;)  1545,  fol.     3.  Ib.  per  Brylinger,  1550,  8vo. 

4.  Francof.  ap.  Andr.  Wechel.  hsr. ;  1597,  fol. 

III.  Vet.  Test,  juxta  LXX.  ex  Auct.  Sixti  v.  ed.  Rom.  1587,  fol.,  according 
to  the  Cod.  Vat.  Compare  Stroth,  in  Repert.  vol.  v.  p.  105.  1.  Vet.  Test 
sec.  LXX.  et  ex  Auct.  Sixt.  v.  ed.  (cur.  Jo.  Monni;)  Par.  1628,  3  vols.  fol. 
2.  Lond.,  1653,  4to.  and  8vo.  See  Walton,  Prolegg.  ix.  §  33.  («)  Canta- 
brig.  cum  Prtef.  Jo.  Pearson,  1665,  3  vols.  12mo.  {b)  Amstel.  ed.  Leusden ; 
1683, 12mo.  maj.  (c)  Lips.  cur.  Cluveri  et  Klumpjii,  cum  Prolegg.  Fnckii  ; 
1697, 8vo.  maj.  3.  Bibl.  Polyglott,  Lond.  ed.  Jf'alton ;  1057,  foL,  (with  var.  of 
the  Cod.  Alex.)  4.  Lips.  ed.  Reinecc. ;  1730,  8vo.,  ed.  2,  1757,  8vo.  5.  Vet 
Test  ex  Vers.  LXX.  interpr.,  sec.  exemplar.  Vatican.  Rom.  ed.,  accuratis- 
sime  denuo  recognitum,  una  cum  Scholiis  ejusdem  ed.,  variis  mstorum  Codd. 
veterumque  Exemplarium  Lectt  nee  non  Fragmentis  Aquilas,  Symmachi  et 
Theodot.,  ed.  Lamb.  Bos;  Franequ,  1709,  4to.  See  Breitinger,  Pref.  ad  ed. 
LXX.  After  this,  ed.  Dav.  Mill. ;  Amstel.  1725,  8vo.  6.  Vet  Test  Gr.  jux- 
ta LXX.  intt  ex  auct  Sixti  v.  juxta  Exemplar  orig.  Vatican. ;  Rom.  ed.  1587, 
recus.  c.  L.  van  Ess. ;  Lips.  1824,  8vo. 

IV.  Septuaginta  Intt  tom.  i.  ex  antiquiss.  MS.  Cod.  Alex,  accurate  descript. 
et  Ope  aliorum  Exemplarium  ac  priscorum  Scriptorum,  prsesertim  vero  hex- 
aplaris  ed.  Origen.  emend,  atque  supplet  addit  ssepe  Asteriscorum  et  Obelo- 
rum  Signis  ed.  J.  Em.  Grabe ;  Ox.  1707,  tom.  ii.  1719;  tom.  iii.  1720; 
tom.  iv.  fol.  (continued  by  Fi:  Lee,)  in  8  vols.  8vo.  On  the  order  of  the 
text,  see  Eichhorn,  Einl.  §  181.  Amersfoordt,  1.  c.  p.  31.  Stroth,  p.  100,  sqq. 
Hence,  Vet  Test  ex  Vers.  LXX.  Intt  olim  ad  Fidem  Cod.  MS.  Alex,  ex- 
press, emend,  et  supplet.  a  /.  E.  Grabio.  Nunc  vero  Exemplaris  Vatic,  alio- 
rumque  MSS.  Cod.  Lectt  variis  nee  non  criticis.  Dissert  illustrat  ed.  J.  J. 
Breitinger;  Ziir.  1730—1732,  4  vols. 4to.  (with  varr.) 

The  Vatican  text  is  contained  in  Vet  Test  Gr,  cum  variis  lectt  ed.  Rob. 
Holmes ;  Oxon.  fol.  tom.  i.  1798—1800.  (Pentat  cont)  Contin.  Jac.  Par- 
sons, tom.  ii.  1810—1816.  (Jos.,  Ruth.,  Sam.,  Regg.,  Paralip.  cont)  Tom. 
iii.  182:3.  (Esr.,  Neh.,  Esth.,  Job,  Ps.,  Prow.,  Eccl.,  Cant  Cant  cont) 
Tom.  iv.  1825.  (Proph.  cont)  Tom.  v.  1827,  (librr.  Apocr.  cont)  See  Dis- 
sert  phil.  de  variis  Lectt  Holmesiensis  locorum  quorundam  Pentateuchi. 
Auct  Jac.  Amersfoordt,  L.  B.  1815,  4to.  See  Gesenius,  in  A.  L.  Z.,  1816, 
J  St,  1832,  1  St 

Daniel,  sec.  LXX.  ex  Tctrapl.  Origenis  nunc  primuni  ed.  e   singulari 


^48.]   VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.    183 

The  criticism  of  the  Seventy  has  hitherto  advanced 
no  farther,  —  and  perhaps  it  never  can,  —  than  to  a  col- 
lection of  the  various  readings.  The  editions  hitherto 
published  do  not  afford  the  true  and  exact  text  of  the 
manuscripts. 

§48. 

IV.  THE  DESCENDANTS  OF  THE  ALEXANDRIAN  VERSION. 
1.  The  old  Latin  Version,  and  Jerome's  Recension  of  it. 

In  the  time  of  Augustine,  there  were  several  Latin 
versions  of  the  Bible.  Among  these,  he  preferred  the 
Itala,  which  was,  perhaps,  the  most  widely  used.  Its 
origin  belongs  to  the  earliest  times  of  Christianity. 

Augustine  thus  speaks  of  these  versions  :  "  They  who 
have  translated  from  the  Hebrew  into  the  Greek  can  be 
numbered,  but  the  Latin  interpreters  can  by  no  means 

Chisiano  Cod.  annorum  supra  DCCC.  Rom.  typ.  Propagandae,  1772,  fol.  cura 
J.  D.  Miclimlis,  Gott  1773,  8vo.  1774,  4to.  c,  animadverss.  et  Prajf.  C.  Se- 
gaai;  Traj.  1775,  8vo. 

[See,  also,  Home,  1.  c.  Bibliographical  Appendix,  pt.  i.  ch.  i.  sect.  v.  §  2. 

it  may  not  be  unnecessary  to  give  a  list  of  the  most  noteworthy  abbre- 
viations which  occur  in  the  margin  of  the  MSS.,  and  are  often  used  in  crit- 
ical writings. 

'E^Q.,  or  'E§Q.  Elk,  tlie  Hebrew  text  in  Greek  letters. 

'  (). ,  the  LXX.  E.,  the  quinta,  the  Jijlh  version. 

--/.,  Aquila.  S'.,  the  sixth  version. 

C,  Symmackus.  Z.,  the  seventh  version. 

&.,  Theodotion.  J.,  or  AO.,  the  other  versions. 

0 

01  r.,  the  three  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion. 

01  J.,  the  four  versions  above,  and  the  LXX.  in  the  common  text. 

77.,  all  the  Greek  versions. 

To  f  (70),  united  with  the  name  of  the  author,  shows  that  he  agrees  with 

the  reading. 
Av^^-y  an  anonymous  translator. 
AL,  another  anonymous  translator. 
Xo).  is  still  doubtful. Eichhom,  §  205.] 


184    VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.  \^   48. 

be  counted ;  for,  even  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity, 
if  any  man  could  lay  his  hands  on  a  Greek  codex  [of 
the  Scriptures,]  he  made  bold  to  translate  it  into  Latin, 
howsoever  small  his  skill  might  be  in  either  tongue." 
And  again,  "  But  among  these  interpretations  the  Itala 
is  to  be  preferred  to  the  others,  for  it  is  more  literal  and 
perspicuous."" 

These  passages  afford  a  clear  proof  that  there  were 
numerous  versions  of  the  whole  Bible.  But  it  can 
scarcely  be  contested,  after  what  has  been  quoted,  that 


"  .lugitstine,  De  Doctrina  Christ  ii.  11 :  Qui  Scripturas  ex  Hebreca  lingua 
in  Grfficain  verterunt,  numerari  possunt :  Latini  autem  interpretes  nullo 
modo.  Ut  enim  cuivis  primis  fidei  temporibus  in  manus  venit  codex  Gra3- 
cus,  et  aliquantulurn  facultatis  sibi  utriusque  ling-uee  habere  videbatur,  ausus 
est  interpretari.  Ch.  15:  In  ipsis  autem  intcrpretationibus  Itala  CEeteris  prfE- 
feratur :  nam  est  verborum  tenacior  cum  perspicuitate  sententiae.  Some 
critics  maintain  tliat  in  this  passage  we  should  read  iWa  for  Itala.  Such  is  tiie 
opinion  of  Bentley,  Casley,  Ernesti,  Lardner,  and  of  many  eminent  critics. 
See  Lardner,  1.  c.  vol.  iv.  p.  525, 526,  v.  p.  229.  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  pt,  i. 
ch.  vii.  sect,  xxiii.  Ernesti,  Institut.  Int,  N.  T.  iii.  p.  4,  13.  Bishop  Potter, 
(cited  in  Marsh,  1.  c,  in  notes  on  ch.  vii.  sect  xxiii.,  and  in  Lardner,  vol.  v. 
p.  229,)  and  Kreysig,  (Observatt.  phil.  criL,  &c.,  cited  in  Eichhorn,  §  321,) 
adopt  the  reading  Usitata.  [This  conjectural  emendation  is  ingenious.  In 
copying  tlie  genuine  passage,  "  interpretationibus  usitata,"  tlie  us  in  tlie  last 
word  was  accidentally  omitted,  and  then  itata  stood  in  place  of  usitata. 
This  might  easily  be  mistaken  for  itala  by  a  subsequent  copyist.  See 
Monk's  Life  of  Bentley,  p.  433,  sqq.  Wrangham's  ed.  of  Waltons  Prolegg., 
vol.  ii.  p.  271.]  Hug,  1.  c.  115,  defends  the  reading  Itala.  See,  also.  Van 
Ess,  Geschichte  der  Vulg.  Augustine.,  De  Consens.  Evang.  ii.  (i(),  uses  tlie 
word  usitata  —  codices  ecclesiasticos  interpretationis  usitatae.  But  this  and 
the  similar  ternis  in  Jerome —  Vulgata  and  communis  editio —  refer  to  the 
LXX.  On  the  other  hand,  the  common  reading  is  confirmed  by  this  passage 
of  Jlugiistine,  Cont.  Faust  ix.  2 :  Ita  si  de  fide  exemplarium  qusestio  verte- 
retur,  sicut  in  nonnullis,  quse  paucfe  sunt,  et  sacrarum  litterarum  notissimai 
sententiarum  varietates  vel  in  aliarum  regionum  codicibus,  wide  ipsa  doclrina 
commeavit :  nostra  dubitatio  dijudicaretur :  vel  si  hi  ipsi  quoque  codices  va- 
riarent,  plures  paucioribus,  vetustiores  recentioribus  prseferrentur ;  et  si  ad 
hue  esset  incerta  varietas,  prsBcedens  lingua,  unde  illud  interpretaturn  est, 
consuleretur.  Eichhorn,  §  321,  thinks  there  was  but  one  old  version  of  the 
O.  T.     See,  on  the  other  hand,  Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  215,  sqq. 


^48.]   VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.    185 

the  following  passages  may  be  understood  to  relate  either 
to  several  different  versions^  or  to  the  different  texts  of 
one,  and  perhaps  the  common  version.  He  writes  to 
Jerome,  "  You  would  do  the  greatest  service  if  you 
would  add  the  Greek  version  of  the  Seventy  to  the  true 
Latin  text,  which  is  now  so  different  in  different  manu- 
scripts, that  it  can  hardly  be  tolerated,  and  so  strongly 
suspected  of  differing  from  the  Greek,  that  it  is  doubtful 
if  any  thing  can  be  proved  by  it."  Again,  "  Therefore 
I  wish  for  your  translation  of  the  Seventy,  that  we  may, 
as  far  as  possible,  be  free  from  the  great  unskilfulness 
of  the  Latin  interpreters,  who  have  had  the  rashness  to 
undertake  it." 

Jerome  also  testifies  to  the  same  thing :  "  For  the 
most  part,  among  the  Latins,  there  are  as  many  differ- 
ent Bibles  as  copies  of  the  Bible  ;  for  every  man  has 
added  or  subtracted,  according  to  his  own  caprice,  as 
he  saw  fit."  "  If  faith  is  to  be  placed  in  the  Latin 
books,  there  are  almost  as  many  books  as  copies."" 

[Jerome  sometimes  calls  the  old  Latin  version  the 
common^  —  for  it  contained  the  text  generally  used  be- 
fore that  of  Origen's  Hexapla  took  its  place,  —  and  some- 
times the  old.  Eichhorn  thinks  there  was  but  one  ver- 
sion in  common  use  before  the  time  of  Jerome ;  that 


"  Augustine.,  Ep.  88,  ad  Hieron.  vol.  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.  611 :  Per  hoc  plurimnni 
profueris,  si  earn  Scripturam  Graecam,  quam  LXX.  interpretati  sunt,  Latinte 
veritati  addideris,  quae  in  diversis  codicibus  ita  varia  est,  ut  tolerari  vix  pos- 
sit,  et  ita  suspecta,  ne  in  Greece  aliud  inveniatur,  ut  inde  aliquid  proferri  aut 
probari  dubitetur.  Ep.  97,  p.  641 :  Ideo  autem  desidero  interpretationem 
tuam  de  LXX.,  ut  ea  tanta  Latinonim  interpretum,  qui  qualescunque  hoc 
ausi  sunt,  quantum  possumus,  imperitia  careamus.    Jerome,  Prsef.  in  Jos. : 

Maxime  cum  apud  Latinos  tot  sint  exemplaria  quot  codices,  et  unus 

quisque  pro  arbitrio  suo  vel  addiderit  vel  subtraxerit,  quod  ei  visum  est. 
Praef.  in  Evangg. :  Si  Latinis  exemplaribus  fides  est  abhibenda,  respondeant 
quibns :  tot  enim  sunt  exemplaria  paene  quot  codices. 

VOL.    L  24 


186  VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.      [^48. 

Others  were  made,  but  never  obtained  general  circula- 
tion. He  says,  all  the  quotations  from  the  Latin  Bible, 
before  Jerome,  belong  to  the  same  text,  though  he  ad- 
mits that  it  was  most  grossly  corrupted.  He  thinks 
this  version  —  called  the  Italian,"  the  common,  the  old  — 
was  made  in  the  first  century  A.  C,  and  by  African  Chris- 
tians. His  arguments  for  the  latter  are  as  follows  :  There 
were  learned  Christians  in  Africa  at  that  time ;  a  trans- 
lation was  more  needed  than  in  Italy,  where  many  under- 
stood Greek ;  the  old  version  was  more  highly  prized  in 
Africa  than  elsewhere  ;  none  but  an  African  would  have 
written  such  bad  Latin  in  that  age,  and  some  expressions 
betray  the  African  author.  But  the  whole  of  this  rea- 
soning is  extremely  unsatisfactory  and  insecure.]  *  There 
is  no  proof  of  its  African  origin. 

The  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  of  which    some 
fragments  still  remain,"  was  made  literally  from  the  Alex- 

"^  If  Itala  be  the  true  reading. 

*  [Eichhorn,  §  320—323.] 

'  .The  frag-ments  may  be  seen  in  tlie  following  works :  Vet.  Test.  sec. 
LXX.  Latine  redditum  ex  Auct  Sixti  V.  Pont.  Max.  editum.  Additus  est 
index  dictionum  et  locutt.  Hebr.,  Gr.,  Lat,  (Auct.  Flaminio  JVobilio ;)  Roui. 
1588,  fol.  Quincuplex  Psalterium,  Gallicum,  Roman.,  Hebr.,  Vetus,  concilia- 
tum,  (Ed.  Faher  Stapidcmis  ;)  Par.  1509,  fol. ;  ed.2, 1513;  ed.3,Caen.  151.5. 
Psalterium  Davidicum  Grsco-Lat  ad  fidem  vet.  exemplarium  atque  adeo  cod. 
Gr.  MS.  etc. ;  Par.  1645,  IGmo.  Excudebat  Carola Guillard.  Psalterium  duplex 
cum  canticis  juxta  vulgatam  Gr.  LXX.  Seniorum  et  antiquam  Lat.  Ital.  vers. 
Prodit  ex  insigni  cod.  Graeco-Lat.  Capituli  Veron.  uncialibus  characteribus 
ante  sept.  sec.  exarato ;  Rom.  1740,  fol.  (The  second  part  o'i  BlancMnVs  Vindi- 
cia3  Canon.  Scripturarum  vulg.  Lat.  editionis ;  Rom.  1740.  Mittenzivey,  Dis- 
sert. Anti-Blanch,  und  Enicsli,  Neu.  theol.  Bibliotli.  vol.  i.  p.  85G.)  Eccle- 
siastcs  ex  Vers.  Itala  cum  notis  Bossudi ;  Par.  1693.  Capitula  Bibliorum 
antiqua  sec.  interpretationem  T(o)'  LXX.  ed.  Jos.  Maria  Carus,  {Tommasi ;) 
Rom.  1688.  Bibliorum  sac.  Latinte  ver^^s.  antique,  seu  vetus  Itala  et  cett., 
qufficunque  in  codd.  MSS.  et  antiquorum  libris  reperiri  potuerunt:  qua?  cum 
vulgata  Lat  et  cum  textu  Gr.  comparantur.  Ace.  pra?ff,  observatt.  et  note 
indexque  novus  ad  vulgatam  e  regione  ed.  Op.  D.  rctri  Snbatier,  ord.  S. 
Bcned.  e  congreg.  S.  Mauri ;  Remis,  174-3,  3  vols.  fol. ;  ed.  auct.  1749 — 1751  ^ 


^48.]   VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.     187 

andrlan  version,  and  from  the  common  text,  (xotr/j,)  and 
preserves  even  its  defects.  It  agrees  most  closely  with 
the  Vatican  codex,"  and  is  a  valuable  help  in  restoring 
the  text  of  the  Septuagint. 

[The   following  is  a  specimen   of  that  version,   and 
shows  its  literal  character  :  — 


Deut.  xxxii. 

Alexandrian  Version. 

1.  ni)ij(Tf/e  ovQuvi  xal  ^«Aijctw 
xul  uxoviio)  1]  -p]  {in'iuuTu  aiiuardg 
ftov. 

2.  IJgoadoxdadu)  w;  veto;  to  un6- 
qdevjuu  fiou  xul  xurw^rjrw  w,  dguaog 
T«  QrjuuTd  fiov.  &ail  on^iiOQ  f/r' 
HyocjaTif,  x«i  woeI    vicpEiug  inl  /oq- 

TO/'. 

3.  "  Ori'  TO  ovofin  y.vfjlov  inuXfau^ 
SoTE  /^ieyn).u)avrijf  jol  Ofio   ■fjuCot'. 


1,  sqq. 

Old  Latin. 

1.  Attende,  cesium,  et  lo- 
quar;  et  audiat,  terra,  verba 
ex  ore  meo. 

2.  Expectetur  siciit  pluvia 
adpronunciatio  mea,  et  de- 
scendant sicut  ros  verba  niea, 
sicut  imber  super  gramen,  et 
sicut  nix  super  fcpnuin. 

3.  Quia  nomen  Domini  in- 
vocavi  ;  date  magnificentiam 
Deo  Nostro.* 


The  whole  of  the  book  of  Job,  the  Psalms,  and  some 
of  the    apocryphal   books,   are   still   extant,    while  only 

These   are   found   in   the 


fragments  exist  of  the  rest. 


3  vols.  fol.  Frid.  Milnter,  Fragmenta  vers,  antiqu.  Latins?  antehieronym. 
Prophetarum  Jer.,  Ezech.,  Dan.,  et  Hos.,  e  cod.  rescr.  Wirceburg ;  Hafn. 
J  819,  in  Miscell.  Hafn.  vol.  i.  pt  i.  p.  81,  sqq. 

"  The  LXX.  omit    Pi-iMST    in  Isa.  Ix.  5.     The  Itala  reads  et  gnudebis ; 

Theodotion,  y.(d  j^k^i^ot;. 

''  [See  these  and  more  specimen^  in  Eichhorn,  §  324. 

In  Gen.  xv.  15,  it  reads,  Tu  autem  ibis  ad  patres  sues  milritus  in  senecta 
bona,  instead  of  sepultiis  in  senecta  bona,  because  the  Greek  MS.  had 
7oa(pFl;  instead  of  Tit<pFlg.  In  Ps.  xvii.  14,  it  retained  a  singular  error. 
The  Greek  MS.  read  i5w*',  (swine,)  for  itar,  (sons  ;)  so  the  translator  ren- 
dered it  suillam  instead  oTJiliorum.    Eichhqrn,  1.  c] 


188  VERSIONS    MADF:    from    THL:    SEPTUACiNX.      [^48. 

Fathers,  in  old  Latin  manuscripts,  in  Psalters,  missals, 
and  breviaries.]" 

Since  the  diversity  and  imperfections  of  the  text  of 
this  version  had  become  greater  than  that  of  the  Septua- 
gint  before  the  time  of  Origen,  Jerome,  in  the  year  382, 
undertook  a  similar  critical  revision  of  it.*  After  finish- 
ing the  New  Testament,  he  corrected  the  Psalms,  thougli 
without  following  any  critical  method.  He  thus  pre- 
pared the  Psalterium  Romanum.  He  then  wrought 
this  work  over  anew,  making  use  of  Origen's  Hexapla 
and  critical  marks.  The  result  was  the  Psalterium  Gal- 
licanum. 

He  thus  speaks  of  the  work :  "  While  I  was  at  Rome, 
I  revised  the  Psalter,  following  the  Seventy ;  though 
hastily,  (cursim,)  yet  I  corrected  it  extensively,  (magna 
tamen  ex  parte.)  But  now,  O  Paula  and  Eustochium, 
since  you  see  it  is  again  corrupted  by  the  fault  of  tran- 
scribers, and  that  the  ancient  error  prevails  more  than 
the  recent  correction,  you  compel  me,  as  it  were,  to 
plough  the  field  just  now  reaped  with  my  sickle,  and, 
with  cross  furrows,  tear  up  the  thorns  which  begin  to 
show  their  heads  anew.  Let  each  one  observe  the  hor- 
izontal line,  or  the  prominent  marks,  that  is,  the  obelisks 
or  asterisks ;  and  whenever  he  sees  a  mark,  (virgulam,) 
let  him  understand  that,  from  thence  to  the  two  points 
which  follow,  the  Septuagint  contains  more  than  my 
version.  But  when  he  sees  stars,  he  may  know  that, 
from  thence  to  the  two  points,  something  has  been  added 
from  the  Hebrew  text,  according  to  the  version  of  The- 
odotion,  which  does  not  differ  from  the  Septuagint  in 


"  [See  Eichhom,  §  324,  sqq.] 

*  Mariianay,  Prolegg.  ii.  ad  Jerome,  Div.  Bib. 


^48.]    VLRSIONS     MADE    FROM     THE    SEPTUAGINT.  I  P>9 

literalness."  Again,  "  Have  I  not  said  something  against 
the  Seventy,  whom  I  diligently  corrected,  some  years  ago, 
and  gave  to  those  who  speak  my  language,  whom  I  daily 
use  in  the  assembly  of  brethren,  and  whose  Psalms  I 
sing  in  continual  meditation  ?  "  Again  he  says,  "  I  do 
not  doubt  that  you  have  the  edition  of  the  Seventy,  which 
I  carefully  corrected,  many  years  ago,  and  gave  to  the 
studious."  Still  further,  he  adds,  "  This,  [edition  of  the 
Septuagint,]  which  is  contained  in  the  Hexapla,  and 
which  we  have  traiislated,  is  the  same  translation  of  the 
Septuagint  which  is  preserved  spotless  and  uncorrupted 
in  the  copies  of  the  learned."" 

In  this  way  he  gradually  wrought  over  the  whole  of 
the  Old  Testament.  He  says  of  part  of  his  labor,  "  Re- 
joice because  you  receive  the  blessed  Job  safe  and  sound, 
who  formerly,  among  the  Latins,  lay  prostrate  in  filth 
and  worms,  and  was  full  of  offences.     And  as,  after  his 

"  Jerome,  Prsef.  ad  Edit,  poster.  Psalmorum :  Psalterium,  Romee  dudura 
positiis,  emendaram,  et  juxta  LXX.  interpretes,  licet  cursim,  magna  tamen 
ex  parte  correxeram.  Quod  quia  i-ursus  videtis,  o  Paula  et  Eustochiuni, 
scriptorum  vitio  depravatum,  plusque  antiquum  errorem,  quam  novam  enien- 
dationem  valere,  coxitis,  ut  veluti  quodam  novali  scissum  jam  arvum  exerce- 

am,  et  obliquis  sulcis  renascentes  spinas  eradicem Notet  sibi  unus 

quisque  vel  jacentem  lineam  vel  radiantia  signa,  id  est,  vel  obelos  vel  aste- 
riscos :  et  ubicunque  viderit  virgulam  prsecedentem  ab  ea  usque  ad  duo 
puncta  quae  impressimus,  sciat  in  LXX.  translatoribus  plus  haberi :  ubi  au- 
tem  stellse  similitudinem  perspexerit,  de  Hebrseis  voluminibus  additum  nove- 
rit  a;que  usque  ad  duo  puncta,  juxta  Theodotionis  duntaxat  editionem,  qui 
simplicitate  sermonis  a  LXX.  interpretibus  non  discordat  Apolog.  adv. 
Rufin.  ii.  24 :  Egone  contra  LXX.  interpretes  aliquid  sum  locutus,  quos 
ante  annos  plurimos  diligentissime  emendates  mese  linguas  studiosis  dedi, 
quos  quotidie  in  conventu  fratrum  edissero,  quorum  Psalmos  jugi  medita- 
tione  decanto  ?  Ep.  23,  ad  Lucinium,  0pp.  iv.  pt  ii.  p.  574 :  Septuaginta  in- 
terprdum  editionem  et  te  habere  non  dubito,  et  ante  annos  plurimos  diligen- 
tissime emendatam  studiosis  tradidi.  Ep.  135,  ad  Sunn,  et  Fret.  0pp.  ii.  p.  627 : 
Ea  autem,  (editio  LXX.  intt.,)  quae  habetur  in  Hexaplis  et  quam  nos  verti- 
nms,  ipsa  est,  quae  in  eruditorum  libris  incorrupta  et  immaculata  LXX.  in- 
terpretum  translatio  reservatur. 


190    VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.   [^48. 

trial  and  his  triumph,  all  his  possessions  are  given  back 
to  him   double,  so  in  our  language   I   have  made  him 

receive    what    he    had    lost." "But   among  the 

Latins,  before  that  translation  was  made  which  we 
have  recently  published  with  its  asterisks  and  obelisks, 
nearly  seventy  or  eighty  verses  were  lacking."  Again, 
"  When  you  demanded  of  me,  in  your  letters,  a  short 
time  ago,  that  I  should  translate  the  Chronicles  for  you 
into  tlie  Latin  tongue,  I  engaged  a  certain  doctor  of 
the  law,  from  Tiberias,  who  is  held  in  great  admiration 
amoniT  the  Hebrews,  and  with  him  I  have  examined  it 
from  end  to  end  ;  and,  thus  confirmed,  I  have  dared  to 
undertake  what  you  command.  For  I  speak  freely. 
This  book  of  names  [Chronicles]  is  so  corrupt  in  the 
Greek  and  Latin  manuscript,  that  you  would  think  they 
were  barbarian  and  Sarmatic,  rather  than  Hebrew 
names,  which  are  here  thrown  together."" 

He  speaks,  in  his  Apology  against  Rufin,  of  revising 
only  six  books,  namely.  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  Eccle- 
siastes,  Canticles,  and  Chronicles.  Double  prefaces  of 
these,  and  no  others,  are  extant.  Perhaps  he  did  not  re- 
vise the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament ;  [but  it  is  more 
probable  that  he  did,  for  he  complains  that  the  greater 

"  Praef.  in  Job :  Beatum  Job,  qui  adhuc  apud  Latinos  jacebat  in  stercore 
et  vermibus  scatebat  errorum,  integrum  et  immaculatum  gaudete.  Quomo- 
do  enim  post  probationem  atque  victoriam  duplicia  sunt  et  universa 
reddita :  ita  ego  in  lingua  nostra  feci  sum  habere  quse  amiserat,  etc. 
Prffif.  alt:  Cseterum  apud  Latinos  ante  earn  translationem,  quam  sub 
asteriscis  et    obelis   nuper    edidimus,    septingenti    ferme    aut    octingenti 

versus  desunt.      See  Ep.  ad  Pammachium Praef.  ad  Paralip. :    Cum 

a  me  nuper  litteris  flagitassetis,  ut  vobis  Paralipomenon  Latino  sermone  trans- 
ferrem,  de  Tiberiade  quendam  legis  auctorem,  qui  apud  Hebrseos  admira- 
tion! habebatur,  assumpsi  et  contuli  cum  eo  a  vertice  (ut  ajunt)  usque  ad 
extremum  unguem,  et  sic  confirmatus  ausus  sum  facere  quod  jubebatis.  Li- 
bere  enim  loquor.  Ita  in  Grsecis  et  Latinis  codicibus  hie  nominum  liber 
vitiosus  est,  ut  non  Hebrsea  quam  barbara  qusdam  et  Sarmatica  nomina 
conjecta  arbitrandum  sit.     See  Hodij,  p.  352,  sqq. 


^48.]      VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGIJNT.  191 

part  of  his  work  was  destroyed  by  the  fraud  of  some 
one.  In  his  Apology,  he  did  not  need  to  speak  of 
books  which  perished  almost  as  soon  as  they  were 
completed,  and  therefore  he  mentions  only  such  as  were 
preserved.  It  is  uncertain  whether  he  revised  the 
Apocrypha.]"  Only  three  passages  of  this  revision  have 
been  printed.* 

["  Jerome  acquired  great  fame  by  this  recension  of 
the  old  Latin  version In  Rome  and  Gaul,  his  re- 
vision of  the  Psalms  was  admitted  into  the  churches,  and 
Augustine  commented  on  his  improved  edition  of  Job. 
But  this  prosperity  excited  envy  against  this  meritorious 
man,  and  Rufinus,  bishop  of  Aquileia,  made  the  bitterest 
reproaches  against  the  good  Father,  on  account  of  this, 
as  well  as  his  other  learned  labors.  He  considered  that 
Jerome  had  committed  an  offence,  because  he  approved 
the  use  which  Origen  had  made  of  the  other  Greek 
versions  to  improve  the  Seventy,  and  preferred  the 
hexaplary  to  the  common  text."  The  few  relics  of  this 
recension  are  valuable  aids  in  the  criticism  of  the  hexa- 
plary text  of  the  Alexandrian  version.]' 

"'  Jerome,  Ep.  94,  ad  August  Opp.  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.  644 :  Grandem  Latini  ser- 
monis  in  ista  provincia  notariorum  patimur  penuriam :  et  idcirco  prjEceptis 
tuis  parere  non  possuraus,  maxime  in  editions  Septuaginta,  qu6B  asteriscis  ve- 
rubusque  distincta  est.     Pleraque  enim  prioris  laboris  fraude  amisimus. 

''  Fabri  Stap.  Psalter,  quincuplex Jos.  Mar.  Cari[Tommasi)  Psalter : 

Juxta  duplicem  edit,  Roniamim  et  Gallicanum,  una  cum  Canticis  ex  duplici 
item  edit,  et  Hymnarium  atque  Orationale :  edit  ad  vetercm  cedes,  formam 
ex  antiquis  MSS.  exemplaribus  digesta ;  Rom.  1683,  4to. ;  reprinted  with 
Tommasi's  con'ections,  and  Jl.  F.  Vezzosi  and  Luc.  Holsteii's  Remarks  in 
Tomnutsrs  works ;  Rome,  1747,  vol.  ii.  Psalter,  cum  Canticis  versibus  pris- 
00  more  distinctum,  argumentis  et  orationibus  vetustis  novaque  litterali  ex- 
planatlone  delucidatum;  Rom.  1697, 4to.;  Einsied.  1727 ;  Vien.  1735,  and  in 
the  3d  vol.  of  Tommasi's  works.  Both  the  Psalters  and  Job  ^1^"  ^>"  Crs^.^A 
in  Jcrome^s  Biblioth.  div.  Opp.  i.  p.  1186,  sqq. 

'  [Eichhorn,  §  330.] 


192  VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.      [^  40. 

§49. 
2.    The  Versions  indirectly  made  into  Syriac. 

According  to  Abulfaragius,  the  western  Syrians  had 
another  version,  besides  the  Peshito,  which  was  made 
from  the  Septuagint.  This,  following  Pococke's  read- 
ing and  translation,  has  commonly  been  called  Figura- 
TA."  [The  Alexandrian  version  was  held  in  super- 
stitious veneration  by  the  Syrians,  and  therefore  it  is  no 
wonder  it  was  the  parent  of  many  new  Syriac  versions.] 

The  following  Syriac  versions  of  the  Septuagint  are 
known  to  us  :  — 

1.  In  the  year  617  A.  C,  Paul,  bishop  of  Tela,  at  the 
request  of  the  Monophysite  patriarch  Athanasius  of  An- 
tioch,  made,  at  Alexandria,  a  Syriac  version  of  the  hex- 

"■  Pococke,  Spec.  Hist  Arabum,  p.  184.  (Compare  Abulfaragius,  Histor. 
Dynast  p.  100.)  "  The  more  western  Syrians  have  two  versions  ;  tlie  direct 
one,(istam  simplicem,)  which  was  translated  from  the  Hebrew  language  into 
tlie  Syriac,  after  the  advent  of  Christ,  the  Lord,  in  the  time  of  Addeus,  [Thad- 
deus,]  the  apostle ;  or,  according  to  otiiers,  before  Christ,  in  tlie  time  of 
Hiram  and  Solomon,  son  of  David.  And  they  have  another,  called  fgura- 
tam,  made  according  to  the  translation  of  the  LXX.  elders,  from  the  Greek 
into  the  Syi'iac,  long  after  the  incarnation  of  the  Savior."  Be  Rossi  trans- 
lates the  passage,  "another  made  after  the  rule  of  the  LXX.,  from  the 
Greek  language  into  the  Syriac."  Spec,  meditse  et  Hexapl.  Biblior.  Vers. 
Syro-Estranghelfe,  p.  1.  Compare  Eichhorn,  Repert.  vol.  iii.  p.  197.  Brims, 
ad  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  181,  says, "  1  will  add  (from  Jlssernaii's  Bib.  Or.  vol. 
iii.pt  i.  p.  146,)  that  the  word  sh^l^Z?  which  properly  mesina  figure,  image,  is 
used  for  text  by  the  Syrians,  when  it  is  applied  to  the  Scripture."  Michadis, 
Or.  Bib.  vol.  xiii.  p.  150.  Sylv.  de  Sacy  (in  Eichhorn's  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  viii. 
p.  588,  following  Renaiidot,  Perpet  de  la  Foi,  vol.  v.  p.  554)  proposes  a  dif- 
ferent reading  of  the  text,  and  translates  it,  "  In  the  time  of  Solomon,  son  of 
David,  and  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  and  [they  have]  another  edition,  called  thi 
version  according  to  the  LXX.,"  instead  of  Pococke''s  text  and  version,  as  above. 
De  Sacfs  conjecture  is  favored  by  the  notes  of  Abraham  Ecchellensis,  on 
Ebedjesii's  Catal.  Lib.  Chaldseorum,  (Rom.  1653,)  and  by  MSS.  See  Jahn, 
vol.  ii.  p.  vi.  sqq. 


^49.]      VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGliM.  193 

apiary  text."  Andrew  Masius  once  had  and  used  a 
manuscript  containing  this  version  ;  but  it  has  since  been 
lost/  However,  in  the  Ambrosian  manuscript  at  Milan," 
the  following  books  are  contained,  namely  :  the  Psalms, 
Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiasticus,  the  twelve  minor 
Prophets,  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  the  Lamentations,  Daniel, 
Ezekiel,  and  Isaiah.  The  fourth  book  of  Kings  is  con- 
tained in  manuscript  at  Paris.*^  All  of  these  have  been 
published,  with  the  exception  of  the  apocryphal  books. 

This  version  follows  the  hexaplary  text,  literally,  even 
imitating  the  Greek  etymologies,  preserving  the  article 
and  the  Greek  words.     It  contains  also  the  hexaplary 


"  Eichhorn^s  Essay  on  the  Author  of  the  Syriac  Version  of  the  Hexapla,  in 
his  Repert.  vol.  iii.  p.  220,  sqq. 

*  JosusB  Imperatoris  Hist,  illust.  atque  explic.  ah  And.  Masio  ;  Antwerp, 
1573,  fol.  Ep.  dedic.  p.  6.  "  In  preparing  this  work,"  says  Masius,  "  I  have  fol- 
lowed the  old  MSS.  [of  the  LXX.,]  and  in  particular  that  whicli  is  preserved 
in  the  Vatican  library.  I  had  also  the  Syriac  version,  a  most  certain  guide, 
that  literally  expresses  the  Greek  text  as  it  was  900  years  ago,  which  was 
contained  in  Origen's  Hexapla,  deposited  by  Eusebius  in  that  noble  library 

at  Csesarea From  the  same  Syriac  interpreter  I  have  the   books  of 

Judges,  and  the  Kings,  besides  the  Chronicles,  Esdras,  Esther,  Judith,  and, 
finally,  a  good  part  of  Tobit  and  Deuteronomy." 

"  Bruns,  in  Eichhorri's  Repert.  vol.  iii.  p.  166 — 212.  De  Rossi,  1.  c.  Com- 
pare Eichhorn,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  197,  sqq. 

''■  Codex  Syriaco-Hexaplaris  Ambrosiano-Mediolanensis  ed.  et  Latine 
vers,  a  Matth.  JVorberg,  torn.  i.  (Jer.  et  Ez. ;)  Lond.  Goth,  1787.  Daniel  sec. 
ed.  LXX.  Intt.  ex  Tetraplis  desumtam.  Ex  Cod.  Syro-Estranghelo  Bibli- 
othecse  Ambros.  Syriace  edidit,  Lat.  vertit,  Prsef.  Notisque  criL  illusti-.  Ca- 
jet.  Bugatus ;  Mediol.  1788.  CurJB  hexaplares  in  Jobum.  E  Cod.  Syriaco- 
Hexapl.  Ambros.-Mediol.  scripsit  H.  Middddoi-pf ;  Vratisl.  1817,  4to. 

Description  and  critical  use  of  them  by  Bruns,  Curse  Hexapl.  in  iv.  libr. 
Reg.  in  EichhorrCs  Repert.  vols,  viii.,  ix.,  x.  Libri  iv.  Regum  Syro-Heptaplaris 
Spec,  e  MS. ;  Paris,  Syriace  ed.,  textum  vers.  Alex.  Hexapl.  restit.  notisque 
illustravit  J.  Gdfr.  Hasse ;  Jen.  1782.  [The  following  portions  of  the  Am- 
brosian MS.  have  been  printed,  in  Eichhorri's  Repert.  vol.  iii.,  with  all  the 
marginal  notes,  &c. :  Isa.  iv.  6,  7.  Dan.  ix.  24 — 27.  Ps.  i.,  and  fragments 
of  Ps.  xl.J 

VOL.  I.  25 


191  VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.       [^49. 

marks,  and  is  a  valuable  aid  in  restoring  the  text  of  the 
Hexapla. 

[This  celebrated  Milan  manuscript  was  first  made 
known  by  J.  J.  BJiornstrahl,  a  Swedish  professor.  He 
published  a  letter  (dated  Milan,  1773)  in  a  Swedish 
journal,  and  stated  that  he  had  seen  a  Syriac  version  of 
a  part  of  Origen's  Hexapla,  in  a  manuscript  written  in 
the  old  Estranghelo  character ;  that  the  manuscript  was 
not  known  to  the  learned.  In  the  margin,  he  says,  are 
Origen's  critical  notes.  At  the  end  of  almost  every  book, 
it  is  said,  "  This  was  translated  from  Origen's  Tetra- 
pla,"  which  had  been  copied  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus. 
There  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  manuscript  in  the 
hands  of  Masius,  and  this  at  Milan,  are  parts  of  the 
same  whole." 

To  Judge  from  the  printed  extracts,  the  version  is  very 
literal ;  it  sacrifices  the  purity  of  the  Syriac,  for  the  sake 
of  a  literal  rendering.  It  seeks  etymologies  of  the 
Greek  words.  This  servile  adherence  to  the  letter  en- 
hances its  value  for  critical  purposes.  In  general  it  fol- 
lows the  hexaplary  text  of  the  Seventy,  but  sometimes 
it  agrees  with  the  Vatican,  sometimes  with  the  Comphi- 
tensian  text.      Sometimes  it  attempts  to  reconcile  the 

"  Eichhorn,  Repert.  vol.  vii.  p.  220,  sqq,  [De  Rossi  publishpd  an  account 
of  this  version.  Spec,  inedit.  et  hexap.  Bib.  Vers.  Syro-Estranghelse  cum 
simplici  atque  utriusque  fontibus,  Grceco  et  Hebrfeo,  collatse,  &c. ;  Parm. 
1778,  4io.  Ho  gives  several  specimens  of  it,  comprising  Ps.  i.,  reprinted 
with  valuable  additions,  in  Eichhorn,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  197,  sqq.  See  tlic  valua- 
ble article  of  Brims,  on  the  Syriac  hexaplary  MS.  at  Milan.  Ibid.  p.  16G,  sqcj.] 

Psahni  sec.  ed.  LXX.  Interp.  quos  ex  Cod.  Syr.-Estrang.  Bib.  Anibros. 

Syriace  imprimcndos  curavit C.  Bugatus  ;  Med.  1820.     See  Pliischke, 

De  Psalteri  Syr.  Mediol.  a  C.  Bugatoed.  pec.  indole  ejusdemque  usu  critico, 
Bonn,  1835.  Cod.  Syr.  Hexapl.  lib.  iv.  Regum,  e  Cod. ;  Paris,  ed.  H.  Mid- 
deldorpf;  Berlin,  1835,2  vols.  4to. :  vol.  i.  contains  Isaiah,  the  twelve  minor 
Prophets,  Ruth,  Job,  Solomon's  Song,  Lament,  Eccles. ;  vol.  ii.  contains  the 
critical  commentary. 


5j49.]      VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.  195 

various  readings  still  extant  in  the  manuscripts.  The 
use  of  it  is  limited  mostly  to  the  criticism  of  the  hex- 
aplary  text  of  the  Seventy,  which  is  quite  imperfect- 
ly represented  by  the  Alexandrian  manuscript.  In  many 
places  it  supplies  the  words  which  are  now  wanting  in 
the  Seventy,  but  found  in  the  Hebrew,  and  sometimes 
it  omits  the  redundancies  of  the  Greek.  It  does  not 
always  give  a  good  sense,  by  combining  the  words  of 
the  several  versions.  It  agrees  closely  with  the  Mar- 
shaline  codex,  the  most  valuable  manuscript  for  the 
restoration  of  the  hexaplary  text.  This  version  gen- 
erally omits  the  passages  of  the  Seventy  not  found  in 
the  Hebrew,  though  not  always,  and  sometimes  it  fur- 
nishes readings  peculiar  to  itself.]" 

In  1486  A.  C,  Hareth  Ben  Senan  made  an  Arabic 
version  of  the  hexaplary  Syriac  translation.  Two  man- 
uscripts of  this  are  still  preserved  in  the  Bodleyan  library 
at  Oxford,  and  two  in  Paris. 

[They  are  mainly  useful  in  revising  the  Syriac  version 
of  the  Hexapla,  and  thereby  restoring  the  true  text  of 
the  Septuagint.]  * 

2.  In  the  Paris  manuscript  we  find  a  version  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  Daniel,  which  was  made  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint and  Theodotion,  and  which  was  revised  in  the 
beginning  of  the  eighth  century,  by  James  of  Edessa, 
"  from  the  version  used  by  the  Greeks  and  the  Syrians," 
that  is,  from  the  Peshito.     It  usually  follows  the  text  of 


"  [Eichhorn,  §  256.] 

*  EichJiorn,  §  294,  c.  Pmdus,  Com.  Crit  exhibens  e  Bibliotheca  Bodle- 
jan.  Specimina  Verss.  Pentateuchi  septem  Arab.  p.  70,  sqq.  Schnurrer,  in 
Holmes,  Praef.  ad  torn.  i.  ed.  LXX.  c.  4.  [See  some  extracts  from  the  Bod- 
leyan MS.  in  JValtoii's  Polyglot,  vol.  vi.  See,  also,  Joseph  MTvUe's  letter  to 
the  bishop  of  London ;  Oxon.  1779,  8vo,  p,  56.  EicJikorti's  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  L 
p.  605,  652,  sqq.] 


J 96    VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINr.   [^49. 

the  Septuagint,  and  (in  the  book  of  Daniel)  Tlicodo- 
tion,  and  agrees  only  occasionally  with  the  Peshito." 

Eichhorn  and  De  Sacy  have  conjectured  that  the  so 
called  Fioruratct  lies  at  the  bottom  of  this  version.  But 
others  think  the  hexaplary  version  mentioned  above  is 
the  same  with  the  Figuraia,  and  has  been  revised  by 
James  of  Edessa.*  But  the  hexaplary  text  never  came 
into  common  use,  but  seems  to  have  been  used  merely 
for  critical  purposes.'' 

[If  we  follow  the  account  of  the  Assemans,  James 
of  Edessa  was  for  a  time  bishop  of  that  place,  but  retired 
from  his  office  in  disgust,  and  spent  nine  years  in  the 
solitude  of  a  cloister  at  Teleda.  Some  months  before 
his  death,  he  returned  to  his  office,  and  died,  A.  C.  708, 
or,  as  others  say,  712.  While  at  Teleda,  he  made  a 
revision  of  the  text  of  the  Syriac  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  the  years  1015,  1016,  of  the  era  of  the 
Seleucidse,  (that  is,  703,  704,  A.  C.,)  according  to  the 
subscription  in  the  two  Paris  manuscripts.  From  the 
specimens  published  by  Eichhorn,  it  would  appear  this 
could  not  be  a  revision  of  the  Peshito,  for  it  agrees,  in 
the  Pentateuch,  step  by  step,  with  the  Septuagint ;  in 
Daniel,  it  sometimes  agrees  closely  with  Theodotian, 
though  at  other  times  it  inclines  to  the  Septuagint. 
Here,  however,  he  aims  to  introduce  some  of  the  pas- 
sages of  the  Peshito.     He   follows  Theodotion  in  the 


"  Eichhorn,  On  the  Syriac  version  of  the  O.  T.  wliich  James  of  Edessa 
edited,  in  his  AWg.  Bib.  vol.  ii.  p.  270,  sqq.  Einleit  §  261.  De  Saci/,  Notice 
d'un  MS.  Siriaque  du  Pent.,  &c.,  in  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  viii.  p.  570,  sqq.,  reprinted 
in  Notices  et  Extraits  de  MSS.  de  la  Bibl.  nat.  vol.  iv.  p.  G84,  sqq.  Bugatus 
published  fragments  of  the  MS.  in  his  Syr.  Hexap.  Daniel. 

*  Hdvernik,  vol.  i.  pt  ii.  p.  64,  66.  Rhode,  Gregor.  Barhebrseus  Schol.  in 
Ps.  V.  et  xviii.  p.  76. 

"  Eichhorn,  §  267.  Assevmn,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  411,  and  vol.  iii.  pt  i.  p. 
75,  sqq. 


^49.]   VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.     197 

apociyplial  part    of   Daniel.     This    revision    became    a 
critical  authority   in  the   church. 

Asseman"  conjectures  that  James  of  Edessa  himself 
made  a  new  version  from  the  Greek,  and  grounds  the 
conjecture  mainly  on  some  various  readings  of  the 
Psalms,  which  Barhebrseus  cites  from  him,  and  on  a 
book  from  his  hand,  in  the  Vatican,  relating  to  the  Syriac 
version.  But  there  seems  to  be  little  reason  for  the 
opinion.] 

3.  A  version  of  the  Old  Testament  was  made,  or  pro- 
cured to  be  made,  by  Philoxenus,  bishop  of  Hierapolis. 
But  of  this  we  know  too  little  to  pronounce,  as  some 
have  done,  that  it  is  the  same  as  the  fgurata.''  [Phi- 
loxenus, called  also  Xenaias,  was  bishop  of  Hie- 
rapolis or  Mabug,  from  488  to  518.  At  his  direction, 
Polycarp  made  a  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  was  called  the  Philoxenian,  in  honor  of  the  bishop 
who  caused  it  to  be  undertaken.  It  is  still  a  question 
whether  he  translated  also  the  Old  Testament.  Moses 
Aghelaus,'  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century, 
mentions  a  version  of  the  Psalms  from  the  Greek,  made 
by  Polycarp,  the  rural  bishop.  The  Milan  manuscript 
of  the  hexaplary  version  on  Isa.  ix.  6,  cites  a  passage 
from  "  another  version  made  for  the  Syrians  by  the  holy 
Philoxenus,  bishop  of  Mabug."  It  cannot  be  deter- 
mined whether  it  included  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.]  ^ 

4.  There  is  a  Syriac  version  of  the  patriarch  Mar 
Abba.  [He  was  by  birth  a  Magian,  but  was  converted 
to  Christianity,   and  applied    himself  diligently  to   the 

"  [L.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  493.] 

''  Adler,  in  Eichhorn,  §  260,  vol.  ii.  p.  180,  note. 

"  [Cited  in  Asseman,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  83.] 

^  [Eichhorn,  §  266.    Repert.  iii.  p.  166,  sqq.,  175,  sqq.] 


198  VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.      [§49. 

Study  of  languages.  He  learned  the  Sjriac  and  the 
Greek,  and  then  translated  several  books  from  the  lat- 
ter into  the  former  tongue.  Amongst  them  was  the 
Old  Testament.  In  translating  this,  he  was  assisted 
by  his  teacher,  one  Thomas,  who  has  been  confounded 
with  Thomas  of  Heraclea.  It  cannot  be  determined 
whether  this  version  was  ever  authorized  by  the  church, 
or  remained  entirely  in  private  use.  It  was  made  in 
the  sixth  century.'' 

5.  Simeon,  abbot  of  the  monastery  of  Licinius,  trans- 
lated the  Psalms  from  the  Greek  into  the  Syriac.  He 
gives  an  account  of  his  labors  in  an  epistle  to  a  monk, 
which — as  well  as  his  brief  exposition  of  some  of  the 
Psalms  —  is  still  extant  in  the  Vatican  library.* 

6.  It  is  also  maintained  by  some  that  Thomas  of 
Heraclea,  a  Monophysite  bishop,  about  613,  made  a 
translation  of  the  Seventy  into  Syriac.  Barhebrseus 
often  quotes  the  Heraclean  version.  Pococke  had  a 
manuscript  containing  the  History  of  Susannah,  which 
professed  to  come  from  the  same  source.  The  apocry- 
phal additions  to  Daniel,  ch.  xii.,  in  Walton's  polyglot, 
are  printed  from  the  Heraclean  version.  But  it  is  not 
probable  that  Thomas  ever  made  such  a  translation  ;  for 
he  was  contemporary  with  Paul  of  Tela,  another  Monoph- 
ysite bishop,  who  himself  made  a  version ;  and  it  is  not 
probable  two  independent  Syriac  versions  would  be  made 
contemporarily  by  associated  bishops,  for  the  use  of  the 
same  party  in  the  church.  Thomas,  it  appears,  trans- 
lated a  portion,  or  the  whole  of  the  Apocrypha,  and 
revised  the  Philoxenian  version  of  the  New  Testament, 


"  [Eichhorn,  §  267.    Asseman,  1,  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  411,  sqq.,    vol.  iii.  pt.  i.  p. 
7n,  s(iq.] 

'•  Eichhorn,  271.    Asseman,  vol.  ii.  p.  83. 


^30.]      VERSIOiNS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGIiNT.  199 

while  Paul  translated  the  hexaplary  text  of  the  whole 
Old  Testament  into  the  Syriac.  The  work  of  Paul 
seems  sometimes  to  have  been  called  the  Heraclean 
version." 

There  was  a  version  called  the  Karkuphish  (versio 
Karhiphensis)  in  use  among  the  Nestorian  Christians, 
who  inhabited  the  mountains  of  Assyria.  It  received 
its  name  —  which  signifies  the  version  of  the  moun- 
taineers —  from  this  circumstance.  However,  but  little 
is  known  of  it.  Dr.  Wiseman  says,  it  is  a  recension  of 
the  Peshito,  made  about  the  end  of  the  tenth  century, 
by  David,  a  Jacobite  monk  of  the  convent  of  St.  Aaron, 
on  Mount  Sigari,  in  Mesopotamia.  It  bears  a  close 
affinity  with  the  Peshito,  except  in  proper  names  and 
Graeco-Syriac  words,  where  it  follows  the  Greek  orthog- 
raphy, and  that  of  Thomas  of  Heraclea.  Some  think  it 
was  made  for  the  Monophysite  Christians,  which  otiiers 
deny.''  There  is  a  valuable  manuscript  of  this  recension 
in  the  Vatican.] 

3.     The  ^Ethiopian  Version. 

The  ^Ethiopians  have  a  version  of  the  whole  Bible,  in 
their  sacred  language,  called  Geez."  Its  origin  cannot  be 
placed   earlier  than  the  fourth  century."*     Its  author  is 

"  [Asseman,  vol.  ii.  p.  283.     Eichhorn,  §  269,  270.] 

'  [Ibid.  Wiseman,  Horae  Syriacee  ;  Rome,  1828,  8vo.  vol.  i.  p.  236 — 240, 
162,  163,  cited  in  Home,  1.  c.  pt  i.  cli.  ill.  sect  iii.  §  4.  Lee's  Proleg.  in 
Bib.  Polyg.  minora,  iii.  sect  iii.  p.  40.  A  writer  in  the  Edinburgh  Review 
for  October,  1840,  art.  v.,  says  M.  Tattam  has  discovered  in  Egypt  two  MSS. 
of  a  Syriac  version,  containing  Exodus  and  Joshua.] 

"  [See  an  account  of  this  language  in  Addung,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  401,  sqq., 
vol.  iii.  p.  101,  sqq.] 

<*  For  an  account  of  the  conversion  of  the  Ethiopians  by  Frumentius,  (the 


200    VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.   [^  50. 

unknown."  [This  version  has  been  referred  to  the  times 
of  the  apostles  by  some ;  but  the  ^Ethiopians  were  not 
converted  to  Christianity  before  the  first  part  of  the 
fourth  century.  It  is,  therefore,  no  wonder  that  traces 
of  this  version  are  not  found  till  near  the  end  of  this  cen- 
tury. Chrysostom  speaks  of  its  existence,  though  with- 
out treating  of  its  history ;  and  no  one  of  ancient  times 
has  given  us  any  information  about  its  author.* 

Bruce  thinks  the  Old  Testament  was  translated  from 
the  Hebrew,  before  Christ,  and  the  New  Testament  at 
the  above  date.  The  dialect  into  which  both  have  been 
rendered  is  a  dead  language,  or,  at  least,  it  is  not  spoken. 
He  seldom  found  perfect  copies  of  the  Old  Testament. 
They  are  rare  in  churches,  and  still  more  so  in  private 
use.  Several  books  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
are  almost  unknown.  The  Abyssinians  make  no  care- 
ful distinction  between  canonical  and  apocryphal  books. 
The  story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  the  Book  of  Enoch, 

Abba  Salama,)  about  330,  see  Ludolf,  Hist  ^Ethiop.  lib.  iii.  2 ;  Franc,  ad  Mgb- 
num,  1681,  fol.  [See  the  other  authorities,  cited  in  Gieseler,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  31!?. 
It  is  commonly,  perhaps,  supposed  that  the  ^Etliiopians  were  converted  by  tlie 
servant  of  Candace,  baptized  by  Philip,  (Acts  viii.  27,)  or  by  Bartholomew,  or 
Matthew,  or  Matthias ;  but  the  ^Ethiopians  themselves  state  that  Christianity 
was  first  taught  them  by  Frumentius  and  JEdesius,  (Fremonatus  and  Sydra- 
cus,)  at  the  above  date.  It  is  supposed  the  Bible  was  translated  at  the  above 
date.  Ludolf,  I.  c.  See  Bruce's  Travels  to  discover  the  Source  of  the 
Nile ;  1805,  vol.  ii.  p.  416 — 420.  See  the  most  ancient  testimony  in  Chrys- 
ostom, Horn,  in  Joh.  ii.  p.  561.] 

A  pretence  to  an  apostolical  origin  of  this  version  has  been  founded  on 
Acts  viii.  27.  Walton,  Prolegg.  xv.  12,  [maintains  that  it  was  made  at  an 
early  date.  His  arguments  are  mainiy  two :  1.  The  early  church  could  not 
flourish  without  the  Scriptures ;  and,  2.  the  version  agrees  with  some  very 
ancient  readings.]  See  Pet.  Vict.  Cajetan,  Paradig.  de  Lingua  Jj^thiop. 
p.  160. 

"  The  yEthiopian  legends  make  Abba  Salama  the  author  of  it.  But  there 
are  traces  of  several  hands.  See  Ludolf,  1.  c.  lib.  iii.  ch.  iv.  p.  295.  Bruce,  1.  c. 
Eichhorn,  AUg.  Bib.  vol.  iii.  p.  120,  sqq. 

*  [See  Eichhorn,  §  309.] 


§50.]      VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.  201 

and  Solomon's  Song,  are  common.  "  Saint  George  and 
his  Dragon  are  reverenced  as  highly  as  the  heroes  of  the 
Old  or  the  saints  of  the  New  Testament."]" 

The  ^Ethiopian  Jews  make  use  of  this  version,  al- 
though it  originated  with  Christian  authors.  The  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament  followed  the  Septuagint, 
according  to  the  Alexandrian  recension,  as  an  original.'' 
There  are  in  Europe  manuscripts  of  this  version  entire,' 
but  only  fragments  of  it  have  yet  been  printed.'' 

«  [Bruce,  1.  c.  in  EichJmrn,  1.  c.  p.  120,  sqq.  Bruce  brought  three  MSS.  of 
the  Book  of  Enoch  to  Europe,  and  one  of  the  ^Ethiopic  version  of  the  whole 
Bible.     See  an  account  of  another  MS.  in  Home,  1.  c.  pt  i.  ch.  iii.  sect,  iii.] 

*  Ludolf,  Comment  in  Hist.  iEthiop.  1.  c.  Renaudot  thinks  the  Coptic 
version  is  the  original  of  the  ^thiopic.  Le  Long,  ed.  Masch,  vol.  ii.  pt.  i. 
p.  142,  sq.  Bruce  is  of  the  opinion  it  is  not  translated  from  the  LXX.  J. 
A.  B.  Dom,  De  Psalterio  ^thiop.,  (Lips.  1825,  4to.,)  maintains  the  author 
often  consulted  the  Hebrew  original ;  but  his  reviewer,  in  A.  L.  Z.  for  1832, 
No.  8,  maintains  the  contrary. 

'  Ludolf,  1.  c.  p.  298.  Bruce's  MS.  is  still  in  the  hands  of  his  heirs.  [It 
is  not  known  in  whose  hands  it  now  is.  Mr.  Home,  1.  c.  pt.  i.  ch.  iii.  sect  iii. 
§  3,  says,  p.  273,  sq.,  the  whole  ^thiopic  version  will  soon  be  printed.  The 
Gospels  are  already  in  print  —  Evangelia  sancta  Ethiopica  ad  Cod.  MSS. 
Fidem,  ed.  T.  P.  Flatt ;  Lond.  1826,  4to.]  See  a  catalogue  of  the  MSS.  ni 
Ludolf,  1.  c.  Besides  the  common  Apocrypha,  they  have  others ;  e.  g.,  the 
Book  of  Enoch,  of  which  an  English  version  has  been  published  ;  the  Book 
of  Enoch  the  Prophet,  &c.,  by  Richard  Laurence;  Ox.  1821,  2d  ed.,  en- 
larged, 1833,  8vo.  [See  the  Christian  Observer,  vol.  xxx.  p.  417,  sqq.  Cited 
in  Home,  1.  c.  Bibl.  Append,  pt  i.  ch.  iii.  sect  ii.  No.  11.  Jl.  G.  Hoffmann, 
Das  Buch  Henoch  ;  Jena,  1833,  2  vols.  8vo.]  See  Gesenius,  article  JEtUop. 
SpracJie  und  Lit,  in  Ersch  and  Grubei-'s  Encyclop. 

-^  Psalter,  cum  Cant  Cant  ed.  J.  Potken;  Rom.  1513,  4to.,  and  Col.  1518, 
fol.,  and  in  London  Polyglot,  1657.     Psalterium  Davidis  ^th.  et  Lat  cum 

duobus  Impr.  et  tribus  MSS.  Codd.  diligenter  collat  et  emend Acce- 

dunt  iEthiopice  tantum  Hymni  et  Orationes  aliqute  Vet  et  N.  Test.,  item 
Cant  Cant  cum  var.  Lectt  et  Notis.  Cura  Jobi  Ludolf,  Frcf.  ad  M.  1701, 
4to.     Cant.  Cant  Schelomonis  ^Eth.  e  vetusto  Cod.  summa  cum  Cura  erutum 

a  J.  G.  A''isselio  ;  Lug.  Bat.  1656, 4to.  Liber  Ruth  ^th.  ed.  a  /.  G.  M^- 

selio ;  Lug.  Bat.  1660,  4to.     Prophetia  Jonae  ex  ^th.  in  Lat  ad  Verbum  versa. 

Cui  adjunguntur  quatuor  Genes,  Capp.  e  vetust   Mspto  ^Eth.  eruta  a 

Theod.  PetrcBo  ;  Lug.  Bat.  1660  ;  reprinted  by  Siaudacher  ;  Frank.  1706,  4to. 
The  four  first  chapters  of  Genesis,  by  G.  Ch.  Burklin  ;  Frankfort  ad  Moe- 

VOL.  I.  26 


202  VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.       [%51. 

[It  follows  the  Greek  text  very  closely,  and  some- 
times copies  its  errors.  It  follovi^s  the  peculiar  readings 
of  the  Alexandrian  text.  It  is  of  no  value  except  as  a 
critical  help  in  restoring  the  text  of  the  Hexapla.  Lu- 
dolph  speaks  unfavorably  of  that  part  printed  in  Wal- 
ton's Polyglot,  and  says  it  has  more  errors  than  Potken's 
edition. 

The  ./Ethiopian  division  of  the  books  is  peculiar 
They  make  four  classes  of  books  :  — 

I.  The  Law  ;  that  is,  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges, 

and  Ruth. 
II.  The  KiiNGS  ;   Samuel,    Kings,   Chronicles,  Ezra, 
Tobit,  Judith,  Esther,  Job,  Psalms. 

III.  Solomon  ;  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Ec- 

clesiasticus,  Wisdom  of  Solomon. 

IV.  The  Prophets  ;  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Lamentations, 

Baruch,    Ezekiel,    Daniel,  the    twelve   minor 
Prophets,  and  the  two  books  of  Maccabees.]  " 

4.    The  Egyptian  Version. 

There  is  a  version  of  the  Bible  in  the  dialect  of  Lower 
Egypt,  which  is  called  Coptic,  —  though  it  is  better 
named  Memphitic,  —  and  another  in  the  dialect  of  Upper 
Egypt,  which  is  called  Sahidic  or  Thebaic.'' 

num,  1696,  4to.     Prophetia  Joel,  ^thiop Lab.  et  Stnd.  TVi.  Pdrcpi ; 

Lug.  Bat.  1661,  4to.     Vaticinium  Malachise a  Th.  Petra-o  ;  Lug.  Bat. 

1661,  4to.     Fragmenta  V.  T.  ex  Versione  iEthiop.  Interprctis  ut  et  aliaquae- 

dam  Opuscula  ^Ethiop.  ex  iEthiop.  Lingua  in  Latina  transtulit Ch.  A. 

Bode  ;  Helmst.  1755,  4to.     [See  Piatt's  Catalogue  of  the  TEthiopic  Biblical 
MSS.  in  the  Library  of  the  Brit,  and  For.  Bible  Society,  &c.  &,c.  1823,  4to.] 
"  [Ludolf,  1.  c.     Eichhorn,  §309,  310.     Hug,  1.  c.  §  97,  98.] 
*  On  the  Egyptian    language    and   its    dialects,  see    Qiiatremtre,  Re- 


§51.]      VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.  203 

[A  great  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is  still  extant  in 
the  manuscripts  of  the  Coptic  version,  and  it  is  probable 
the  translation  included  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Sahidic  version  also  included  the  same.]  "  The  ori- 
gin  of  these  versions  is  probably  to  be  referred  to  the 
end  of  the  third  and  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  centu- 
ry; for  at  that  time  Christianity  seems  first  to  have  been 
extended  to  the  Egyptian  provinces.*  Both  follow  the 
Alexandrian  version,  but  it  is  doubtful  which  of  the  two 
is  the  oldest."  [Woide''  maintains  that  an  Egyptian 
version  was  made  in  the  first  century.  His  arguments  are 
as  follows  :  Christianity  early  penetrated  into  Egypt ;  a 
version  would  be  needed,  for  Greek  was  not  correctly 
spoken.     To  prove  the  latter  point,  he  cites  Athanasius 

cherches  critiques  et  historiques  sur  la  Langue  et  la  Lit  de  I'Egypte  ;  Paris, 
1808,  8vo.  [See  the  "  Precis,"  of  this  work  in  Classical  Journal,  vol.  i.  p, 
101,  sqq.]  Hug,  in  Ersch  and  Gruber''s  Encyclop.,  art,  Egypt.  Sprache,  &c. 
[M.  Q^uatremlre  thinks  the  Coptic  and  ancient  Egyptian  were  substantially 
tlie  same  language,  and  that  it  continued  to  be  spoken  long  after  the  Greek 
became  the  legal  tongue.  He  thinks  the  Egyptians  had  many  books  before 
the  time  of  Cambyses.     See  Bib.  Repos.  for  July,  1839,  art.  ii.] 

"  [See  Eichhorn,  §  313,  sqq.] 

^  Milnter  on  the  age  of  the  Coptic  versions  of  the  N.  T.,  in  EichJioni's 
AUg.  Bib.  vol.  iv.  p.  24,  sq.  ["  If  we  attempt  to  place  the  origin  of  the 
Egyptian  versions  of  the  Bible  about  the  end  of  the  third,  or  the  beginning 
of  tlie  fourth  century,  we  do  not  meet  with  the  same  difficulties  as  in  the  at- 
tempt to  refer  tliem  to  a  more  ancient  date.  There  are  express  testimonies 
to  the  existence  of  a  Coptic  version  of  the  Bible  in  the  fourth  century." 
Miinter,  1.  c.  24.]  On  the  other  hand,  see  some  of  the  earlier  opinions  in 
Spec.  Verss.  Dan.  Copt.  (Rom.  1786,)  p.  23,  and  JFoide  in  /.  Jl.  Cramer^s 
Beitriige  zur  Befdrd.  theol.  Kentnitze,  iii.  1.  Hug,  1.  c.  and  Introduction,  §  90, 
sqq.,  dates  the  Lower  Egyptian  version  in  the  latter  half  of  the  third  centu- 
ry, and  the  Upper  Egyptian  in  the  first  half  of  that  century.  Engelbreth,  N. 
Theol.  Journal,  vol.  vi.  p.  844,  and  Mler,  1.  c.  p.  186,  give  a  catalogue  of  the 
MSS. 

"  See  Woidt's  comparisons  of  tlie  Greek  and  Egyptian  versions,  in 
Holmes's  ed.  of  the  LXX.  In  Daniel,  Theodotion'a  version  was  the  basis. 
See  Adler,  1.  c.  p.  187.     Miinter,  1.  c.  p.  139,  sqq. 

"^  [Cited  in  Eichhorn,  §  316,  a.] 


204  VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGLXT.      [§51. 

and  Sozomen "  to  show  tliat  Antony,  an  Egyptian  her- 
mit, could  not  speak  Greek.  Pachomius  wrote  rules  for 
seven  thousand  monks  in  the  Egyptian  tongue  ;  some 
of  Chrysostom's  homilies,  and  passages  from  the  writii^s 
of  Athanasius,  Basil,  Gregory,  and  Cyril,  were  also  trans- 
lated into  Egyptian.  The  Bible  must  have  been  trans- 
lated much  earlier.  However,  these  arguments  are  not 
conclusive.  But  if  the  version  is  quoted  in  Valentin- 
ian's  Sophia,  —  written  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second 
century,  —  as  Woide  maintains,  the  conclusion  is  irre- 
sistible. He  finds  traces  of  the  Memphitic  version  in 
the  third  century.  Saint  Antony,  who  lived  in  Lower 
Egypt,  could  not  read  Greek,  but  yet  read  the  Bible. 
But  the  date  of  both  these  versions  rests  mainly  on  con- 
jecture. Yet,  if  one  of  them  follows  the  recension  of 
Hesychius,  as  Miinter  supposes,  we  have  good  reason 
for  placing  it  after  the  middle  of  the  third  century.]* 

W'hole  books  and  a  couple  of  fragments  of  the  Lower 
Egyptian  version  have  been  printed,'^  but  only  frag- 
ments of  the  Upper  Egyptian.'^ 

["  The  Egyptian  versions  in  general  adopt  words  and 
phrases  from  the  Seventy,  though  sometimes  they  are 
differently   divided.     Whatever    is    added,    omitted,    or 

"  [Eichhorn,  1.  c.  See,  also,  Hug,  1.  c.  §  90 — 96,  and  tlie  authorities  he  cites, 
and  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  pt  ii.  p.  595,  sqq.] 

''  [EichJiorn,  1.  c] 
Qninque  Libri  Mosis  Proph.  in  Lingua  JEgypt  descripti  et  Lat.  versi  a 
Dav.  JVHJcuis ;  Lend.  1731,  4to.  The  Psalms  were  printed  at  Rome,  1744 
and  1749,  at  the  expense  of  the  Propaganda.  The  fragment  Jer.  ix.  17 — 
xiii.,  is  published  in  Reliquiis  iEgypt.  Codd.  Venetiis  in  Biblioth.  Naniana 
asservatorum,  (ed.  Mingarelli,)  Fasc.  i. ;  Bol.  1785,  and  Daniel,  ch.  ix.  in 
Munter's  Specimina  above  cited. 

''  Daniel,  ch.  ix.  in  Miinter,  1.  c.  Jer.  xiii.  14.  xiv.  19,  in  Mingarelli,  1.  c. 
Isa.  i.  1 — V.  18,  25,  in  Engelbreth,  Frag.  Basmuricocopt.  V.  et  N.  T. ;  Hafn. 
1811.  See  EngelbretKs  Catalogue  of  the  MSS.  in  Neue  Theol.  Journal,  vol. 
vi.  p.  844.    [See  Home,  pt.  i.  ch.  iii.  sect.  iii.  §  3.] 


^51,]      VERSIOiNS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.  205 

transposed  in  the  Seventy,  is  added,  omitted,  or  trans- 
posed, likewise  in  the  version.  Yet  this  harmony  is  not 
without  exceptions.  Sometimes  the  Egyptians  insert 
something  in  the  text ;  sometimes  omit  something 
through  neolio^ence.  It  often  agrees  with  the  Alex- 
andrian  codex,  in  particular  when  this  accords  with  the 
Oxford  and  Marshaline  manuscript,  and  the  Aldine  and 
Complutensian  editions.  Sometimes  it  contains  read- 
ings pecuHar  to  these  authorities,  or  to  Origen,  Theodo- 
tion,  Symmachus,  and  ilquila ;  sometimes  it  follows 
the  Hebrew  text,  and  dejiarts  from  all  the  readings  of  the 

Seventy  hitherto  known Both  of  these  versions 

were  made  independently  from  the  Greek,  as  it  is  evident 

from  the  great  diversities  between  the  two Their 

critical  use  is  limited  to  the  correction  of  the  Seventy. 
Sometimes  they  retain  what  is  lost  from  the  Greek  ; 
sometimes  explain  obscure  words ;  sometimes  correct 
errors ;  and  sometimes  they  confound  the  Egyptian 
names  with  the  Greek  names  of  places."  The  Sahidic 
version  of  Daniel  —  in  which  both  versions  follow  The- 
odotion  —  differs  from  the  Memphitic  enough  to  show 
they  were  not  both  from  the  same  text  of  that  version. 
From  this  circumstance  Miinter  concludes  they  did  not 
use  Origen's  recension  of  Theodotion's  text.  Both  must 
have  been  made  after  Theodotion's  work  had  acquired 
ecclesiastical  authority.] " 

There  is  still  another  Egyptian  version,  in  the  Bas- 
muric  dialect,  of  which  Engelbreth  has  published  some 
fragments.*     [Athanasius,   bishop  of  Rus,    mentions    a 


"  [Eichhorn,  §  315,  sqq.  A  writer  in  the  Edinburgh  Review  for  October, 
1840,  art.  v.,  states  that  Mr.  Tattam  has  recovered  some  valuable  MSS.  of 
the  "  Coptic,"  which  "  will  soon  be  published."] 

*■  See,  as  above,  p.  204,  note  d,  [and  Hug,  1.  c.  §  96.] 


206    VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.   [^  52. 

third  dialect  of  the  old  Egyptian  language,  the  Basmu- 
ricj  which,  however,  became  extinct  in  his  time.  It  is 
mentioned  in  his  Copto-Arabic  Grammar,  still  preserved 
in  manuscript,  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris;"  from 
which  Picques  gave  the  first  information  concerning  this 
dialect  to  the  learned  of  Europe,*  but  without  being  able 
to  make  it  further  known  by  publishing  any  specimens 
of  it.  At  last,  Georgi "  found  a  fragment  of  a  version  of 
the  New  Testament,  (1  Cor.  ix.  9 — 16,)  in  an  old 
Egyptian  dialect  which  differed  from  that  of  Upper  and 
Lower  Egypt.  He  conjectured  it  was  the  Basmuric. 
This  version  was  made  from  the  Alexandrian,  but  it  can- 
not be  determined  from  what  text.]  '^ 

§52. 

5.    The  Armenian  Version. 

Miesrob,  or  Mesrobes,  with  the  assistance  of  John 
Echellensis  and  Joseph  Palnensis,  [or  Planensis,]  about 
410  A.  C,  gave  the  Armenians  a  translation  of  the  Bible, 
and  also  an  alphabet.*  [The  Armenian  literature  com- 
mences with  him.  Before  his  time,  the  Armenians  must 
have  used  the  alphabet  of  their  neighbors,  the  Persians, 
Syrians,   or   Greeks.      Perhaps  the   first  literary    work 

"  [  Qiiatremere,  1.  c.  p.  20, 147.] 

*  [Commerciuin  lit  p.  284.] 

"  [  Georgi,  Fragm.  Evang.  Joh.  Prnef.  p.  75.  (^uatremhe  published  the 
Lamentations,  Jer.  iv.  22 — v.  22,  and  Jeremiah's  Epistle  to  the  Jews  in 
Babylon.  Engelbreth,  i.  1—16,  and  v.  8—25.  See,  also,  Zoega,  Catalogus 
Codd.  Copt.  MSS.  qui  in  Museo  Borgiano  asservantur ;  Rom.  1810,  p.  145 
— 169,  et  al.     Woidius,  De  Vers.  Bibliorum  iEgypt  Diss.] 

•^  [See  Eichhorn,  §  316,  c] 

'  Mosis  Chorensis,  Hist.  Armenise,  ch.  54,  p.  299.  Comp,  ch.  61,  p.  313. 
Schjoder,  Diss,  de  Ling.  Armen.  in  Thes.  Linguae  Armen.  p.  59. 


§52.]      VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.  2U7 

written  in  the  new  character  of  Miesrob  was  this  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible.  The  Proverbs  were  first  trans- 
lated.]" 

In  the  Old  Testament,  this  version  follows  the  Septua- 
gint  very  closely,  and  Theodotion's  translation  of  Daniel. 
It  is  made  from  a  mixed  text,  which  does  not  agree  with 
any  of  our  most  important  recensions.'  It  oftener  agrees 
with  the  Alexandrian  codex  than  with  the  Aldine  or 
Complutensian  editions.  But  sometimes  it  follows  a 
reading  contained  only  in  the  two  latter,  and  not  in  the 
former.  In  passages  where  all  these  differ  from  Bos's 
printed  text,  the  Armenian  version  retains  the  diverse 
reading.  Since  this  does  not  follow  any  text  now  known, 
it  is  thought  to  be  peculiarly  valuable  for  correcting  the 
Seventy  ;    but  its  value  is  limited  to  that  object.' 

It  has  often  been  supposed  that  this  version  was  inter- 
polated from  the  Peshito  in  the  sixth  century ;  but  this 
opinion  is  unfounded,  and  rests  only  on  a  conjecture  of 
Barhebrseus,  which  has  been  repeated  by  Walton  and 
Wiseman. "^  It  is  doubtful  that  it  was  interpolated  from 
the  Vulgate  in  the  thirteenth  century,  as  La  Croze  and 
Michaelis  suppose.*  [However,  Eichhorn  believes  that 
it  has  been  corrupted  from  the  Syriac  and  the  Vulgate, 

«  [Eichhorn,  §  306.     Hug,  §  86.] 

''  Bredencamp,  on  the  Armenian  version  of  the  O.  T.,  in  Eichhorn,  AUg. 
Bib.  vol.  iv.  p.  630,  sqq.  JVhiston,  Praef.  ad  Mosis  Chorensis,  Hist.  Armen, 
p.  xii.  sqq. 

"  [Eiclihorn,  §  307.     Marshes  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  pt.  i.  p.  98,  sqq.] 

''■  See  Gregory,  on  Ps.  xvi.,  repeated  in  TValton,  Proleg.  xiii.  16;  more 
fully  in  Wiseman.  Hor.  Syriacse,  p.  142.  Comp.  Bhode,  Gregor.  Barhebrsei 
Scholia  on  Ps.  v.  et  xviii.  p.  74,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  Bredencamp,  1.  c, 
p.  634,  sqq. 

'  La  Croze,  Thes.  Epist  vol.  iii.  p.  3,  sq.,  69.  Marshes  Michaelis,  vol.  ii. 
pt  i.  p.  98,  sqq.  Bredencamp,  1.  c.  p.  635,  sqq.  See,  on  the  other  side,  Adler, 
Philol.  Krit.  Miscell.  p.  140,  sqq.     Holmes,  Prtef.  in  ed.  LXX.  ch.  4. 


208    VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.   [^52. 

but  thinks  it  doubtful  from  which  Sjriac  version  the  in- 
terpolations have  been  made.  But  its  agreements  with 
the  Sjriac  may  be  accounted  for  without  the  hypothesis 
of  interpolations  from  it ;  for  Isaac,  the  patriarch  of  Ar- 
menia, was  engaged  in  translating  a  Syriac  version  into 
Armenian,  when  Miesrob  returned  to  the  country  with 
the  Greek  manuscripts  he  had  procured.  The  version 
from  the  Syriac  text  was  then  thrown  aside.  But  it 
may,  naturally  enough,  have  given  a  Syriac  tinge  to  the 
new  version  from  the  Greek.  Gregory  says,  as  soon 
as  finished,  it  was  altered  to  accord  with  the  Syriac." 

The  alterations  from  the  Vulgate,  says  Eichhorn,  are 
indisputable.  Even  the  inscriptions  of  the  books  in  the 
Vulgate  have  sometimes  been  translated.*  Here  and  there, 
the  text  also  has  been  corrupted  from  this  source,  though 
it  does  not  always  agree  with  the  present  readings  of 
that  version.  But  since  we  do  not  know  what  Greek 
text  was  the  basis  of  the  Armenian  translation,  we  can- 
not, in  all  cases,  determine  how  much  has  been  taken 
from  the  Latin.  In  one  instance,  the  Armenian  text  reads 
three  hundred  instead  of  two  hundred,  the  common  read- 
ing, and  a  marginal  note  refers  to  the  Vulgate  as  author- 
ity for  the  alteration.  But  the  reading  is  not  in  the 
common  text  of  the  Vulgate,  though  it  is  found  in  the 
edition  of  1587.  In  the  book  of  Daniel,  it  followed 
Theodotion,  though  it  has  peculiar  readings.] " 

Bishop  Uscan,  the  first  editor  of  the  Armenian  Bible, 


"  [Eichhorn,  §  307,  308.     Hug,  §  86.] 

*  [La  Croze  and  others  think  Haitho  IL,  an  Armenian  king,  from  1224  to 
1270,  caused  this  version  to  be  revised  and  corrected  from  the  Vulgate,  and 
Jerome's  Prefaces  to  be  translated.  But  Holmes,  1.  c.  ch.  4,  does  not  ad- 
mit this.] 

'  [Eichhorn,  §  307,  308,  c] 


^53.]      VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.  209 

has    been    accused    of   making    interpolations    in    this 
version.'' 

^53. 

6.    The  Georgian  or  Grusinian  Version. 

In  the  sixth  century,  the  Georgians  procured  them- 
selves a  translation  of  the  Bible,  after  the  example  of 
the  Armenians,  from  vi^hom  they  had  received  the  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  made  in  their  sacred  language  and  writing 
character,  from  Greek  manuscripts,  and,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  from  the  Septuagint.  The  authors  are  not 
known.  In  the  Moscow  edition*  the  text  is  altered 
from  the  Slavic  version." 

[Before  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  the  Geor- 
gians, like  the  Armenians,  —  on  whom  they  depended 

"  La  Croze,  I.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  290,  iii.  p.  3,  sqq.  Whiston,  1.  c.  p.  x,,  sqq. 
Rosenmiiller,  Handbuch,  vol.  iii.  p.  79,  sq. 

Editions  of  this  Version.  —  Uscan's,  (Osgan,)  Amst  1666,  4to,, 
reprinted  at  Constantinople,  1705,  4to.,  [this  edition  was  collated  by  Bre- 
denkamp  for  Dr.  Holnm's  edition  of  the  LXX. ;]  Venice,  1733,  foL,  [with 
marginal  notes.]  The  last  edition  at  Venice,  1805,  4to.  [contains  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  with  various  readings  from  about  twenty  MSS.,  and 
short  Armenian  scholia  to  explain  the  text  Hug,  §  89.]  The  Psalms 
were  published  at  Rome,  1565;  Venice,  1642;  Amst  1661,  4to. ;  ibid. 
1666  and  1672,  16mo. ;  Mars.  1673,  8vo.  Obadias,  Armen.  et  Lat.  cum 
Annotatt.  And.  Acoluihi ;  Lips.  1680,  4to.  [Psalms  of  David ;  Venice,  4to. ; 
no  date.] 

According  to  Hug,  §  89,  the  bishop  of  Erivan,  the  capital  of  Armenia,  — 
the  same  who  translated  the  Life  of  Miesrob  into  Latin,  —  was  sent  to  Eu- 
rope in  1662,  by  a  synod,  to  print  an  Armenian  Bible.  "  He  took  up  his  res- 
idence in  the  monastery  of  Usci,"  from  which  circumstance  he  was  called 
Uscanus.  But  this  may  be,  perhaps,  a  mistake  ;  for  he  seems  to  have  had 
the  name  from  his  bishopric,  Erivan,  ( Yushavan.)  He  acknowledges,  in  his 
preface,  that  he  altered  the  text  of  his  MSS.  to  suit  the  Vulgate.  See  a  list 
of  tJie  principal  MSS.  used  in  preparing  Uscan's  ed.  in  Holmes,  1.  c.  oh.  iv.J 

'-  Folio,  1743. 

'  Eichhom,  §  318,  b,  and  AUg.  Bib.  vol.  i.  p.  153: 

VOL.  I.  27 


210    VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.  [^53. 

in  political  and  ecclesiastical  matters,  —  made  use  of  the 
Greek  language  and  ritual  in  their  religious  services, 
and  of  the  Greek  alphabet  in  all  their  writings.  But 
after  Miesrob  had  invented  the  Armenian  alphabet,  about 
420,  at  the  request  of  Isaac  Bartik,  the  Armenian  patri- 
arch, the  Georgians  made  use  of  it,  and  since  that  time 
the  Georgian  alphabet  has  been  formed  out  of  the  Ar- 
menian." 

The  proper  literature  of  the  Armenians  begins  soon 
after  the  invention  of  their  alphabet.  The  Georgians 
expected  advantages  from  this  circumstance;  but,  before 
the  Armenian  patriarch  could  procure  a  translation  of  the 
Bible  from  the  Greek  into  the  Georgian  tongue,  the 
Armenians  were  subjected  to  the  iron  yoke  of  Persia,  in 
460,  and  their  nascent  literature  interrupted.  Even  the 
influence  of  the  Greeks  ceased  to  affect  them  after  520 ; 
for  the  Persians  separated  them  from  the  Greek  church. 
But  the  Georgians  soon  returned  to  its  bosom,  and  then 
their  own  literature  commenced.  Following  the  exam- 
ple of  the  Armenians,  they  sent  promising  young  men 
to  Greece  to  learn  its  language,  and  obtain  a  generous 
education.  After  their  return,  they  seem  to  have  trans- 
lated the  Bible  and  ecclesiastical  books  into  the  Geor- 
gian language. 

Two  dialects  prevail  in  this  country  —  the  book  lan- 
guage and  the  comtnon  language.  The  latter  is,  how- 
ever, only  a  corruption  of  the  former,  —  in  which  the 
version  of  the  Bible  is  made.  There  are  likewise  two 
alphabets,  or  kinds  of  writing.  The  one  is  called  the 
sacred  character,  and  is  the  same  which  Miesrob  invent- 
ed for   the  Armenians.      It  is  called  Kuzuri,  and  the 


"  [See  Gruzii,  Istoriczeskoje  izobrashenije  ;  Petersburg,  1802, 8vo.  ch.  iii. 
Allg.  Bib.  1.  c.    Mosis  Chorensis,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  53 — 62.] 


^54.]   VERSIONS  MADE  FROM  THE  SEPTUAGINT.    211 

Scriptures  are  written  and  printed  in  this  character. 
The  other  is  trailed  Kedvuli,  and  seems  to  have  origina- 
ted among  the  Georgians  themselves,  perhaps  from 
simplifying  the  former  characters.  The  early  histo- 
ry of  this  version  and  the  names  of  its  authors  are  not 
known.  It  remained  in  manuscript  till  the  beginning 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  Waktangh  caused  the 
Psalms,  Prophets,  and  the  New  Testament,  to  be  print- 
ed at  Tiflis.  The  whole  Bible  was  printed  at  Moscow, 
1743,  in  folio,  but  altered  after  the  Sclavonic  version. 
The  Georgian  names  for  the  Scriptures  are  Zminda 
Zerili,  the  holy  writing ;  Samkto  Zerili,  the  divine 
writing ;  Bibbia,  the  Bible ;  Zighni  Zvelisa  da  akalio 
aghtikmisa,  the  book  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.]" 

§54. 

7.    The  Slavic  or  Sclavonic  Version. 

The  Slavic  [or  old  Russian]  version,  also,  —  which  is 
supposed  to  have  been  made  by  Methodius  and  Cyril  in 
the  ninth  century,  —  is  commonly  considered  a  descend- 
ant of  the  Seventy.^  But  according  to  the  ancients,'  it 
was  originally  made  from  the  Itala,  and  in  the  Glago- 
litic  character,  and  was,  perhaps  for  the  first  time, 
corrected  from  Greek  manuscripts  in  the  fourteenth 
century."^ 

"  [Eichhorn,  AWg.  Bib.  vol.  i.  p.  153—169.    EinleiL  §  318,  b.] 

''  Eichhorn,  §  318,  a.  Kohl,  Introduct.  in  Hist,  et  Lit.  Slavorum,  &c. 
[Henderson,  Biblical  Researches  and  Travels  in  Russia;  Lond.  1526.  Home, 
pt.  i.  ch.  ii.  sect  iii.  §  4.  See  an  article  on  the  Russian  dialects,  in  the  Wie- 
ner Jahrblicher,  vol.  xcv.  p.  186,  sqq.,  189,  sqq.] 

'  Holmes,  Preef.  in  LXX.  ch.  iv.  [Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  pt.  i.  p.  153, 
sqq.] 

'^  Editions  of  this  Version.  —  The  Pentateuch,  by  Franz  Scornia; 
Prag.  1519.  The  whole  Bible ;  Prag.  1570,  fol.,  [revised,  and  in  some 
places  corrected:]  Ostrog.  1581,  [revised  after  an  old  MS.  of  fVasiljeiincz ;] 


212  VERSIONS    MADE    FROM    THE    SEPTUAGINT.      [§  55. 

%55. 
8.    Several  Arabic  Versions. 

I.  The  Arabic  translation  of  the  Prophets  contained 
in  the  Paris  and  London  polyglots,  according  to  the  sub- 
scription of  the  Parisian  manuscript,  was  made  [from 
the  Septuagint]  by  a  priest  of  Alexandria.  His  age  is 
not  determined ;  but  it  was  somewhat  later  than  the 
tenth  century." 

[The  subscription  is  curious.  "  The  end  of  the  pre- 
diction of  the  Prophet  Malachi,  and  also  of  the  book  of 
the  sixteen  Prophets,  after  the  version  of  the  celebrated 
and  learned  Father,  an  accomplished  priest,  of  Alex- 
andria, from  an  old,  finely-written  Greek  manuscript. 
Copied  by  the  little,  unworthy  Abdrabbih,  son  of  Mo- 
hammed, son  of  Achmed,  son  of  Abdarrachman,  son  of 
Ali  by  Saara,  a  Christian  woman.  He  prays,  and  sup- 
plicates each  man  to  pray  for  him,  that  he  may  receive 
favor  and  forgiveness,  and  that  the  Lord  would  take 
him  to  heaven.  Praise  to  God  forever  !  In  the  month 
Dsubhadsha,  A.  992,  (A.  C.  1584.)"  A  hasty  compari- 
son shows  this  statement  to  be  accurate.  It  seems  to 
follow  the  hexaplary  text  of  the  Seventy,  except  in 
Daniel,  where  it  follows  Theodotion,  and  contains  some 
peculiar  readings  of  the  Alexandrian  codex.* 

The  Hagiographa  and  historical  books,  till  Joshua, 

Moscow,  1663,  1751,1756,  1757,  1759,  17G6 ;  Kiow,  1758;  and  Suprasl,  in 
Poland,  1743.  [See  an  account  of  this  version,  with  specimens  of  the 
MSS.,  in  the  Origin  and  Progress  of  Writing,  by  Thomas  Astle ;  Lond.  1803, 
4to.  p.  100.     See  Hug,  1.  c.  §  142,  sqq.] 

"  Gahr.  Sion.  Praef.  ab  Psalter.  Syr. ;  Par.  1625.  Gesemtis,  Comm.  iib. 
Jes.  i.  1,  p.  98,  who  describes  the  characteristics  of  this  version  of  Isaiah, 
and  shows  that  it  follows  the  hexaplary  text.  Spohn,  Jerem.  Vat.  i.  Praef. 
p.  21.     This  version  was  reprinted  at  Newcastle,  1811. 

*  [EicMom,  §  295.] 


§  56.]  THE    VENETIAN    VERSION.  213 

the  book  of  Judges,  Chronicles,  and  Job,  were  also  trans- 
lated from  the  Greek,  and  may  serve  as  a  valuable  means 
of  correcting  the  Seventy.] " 

II.  The  ivritings  of  Solomon,  in  the  same  polyglots. 

III.  The  book  of  Ezra,  which  is  contained  in  the 
same  polyglots. 

IV.  The  Psalms  according  to  the  Egyptian  recension, 
which  are  found  in  the  same  place  ;  and  that  accord- 
ing to  the  Syriac  recension,  as  printed  in  Justiniani's 
Psalter,  and  in  Liber  Psalmorum  of  Justiniani  and 
Gabriel  Sionita.* 

[Sometimes  the  two  agree  very  closely,  sometimes 
they  differ  widely.  Some  have  concluded  from  this  cir- 
cumstance that  they  are  only  two  recensions  of  the  same 
old  manuscript.] 

V.  The  common  version  of  the  Psalms  used  by 
the  Melchites  —  an  orthodox  sect  of  Oriental  Christians 
—  was  made  by  Abdallah  Ben  Alfadl,  before  the  twelfth 
century.'' 

VI.  There  are  some  Arabic  translations  from  the 
Greek,  which  are  still  unprinted.'^ 

§56. 

V.   THE   VENETIAN    VERSION. 

In  the  library  of  Saint  Mark,  at  Venice,  there  is  a 

"  [Exc^Aorn,  §  295.] 

*  Justinianus,  Psalterium  octaplum;  Gen.  1516,  fol.    Liber  Psalmorum 

A  Gabr.  Sionita  et  Vidono  ScialcR ;  Rom.  1614,  4to.     [See  Eichhorn, 

§  295,  296.] 

'  Printed  at  Haleb,  1706 ;  Padua,  1709 ;  Hate,  1735,  and  frequently ; 
Lond.  1725 ;  Vienna,  1792.  See  Rosenmuller's  Handbuch,  vol.  iii.  p.  495, 
eqq.  Doderlein,  On  the  Arabic  Psalters,  in  Eichhorn^s  Repert.  vol.  ii.  p.  176, 
sqq.,  vol.  iv.  p.  187,  sqq.     [See  the  specimen  in  Eichhorn,  §  301,  a.] 

■^  Adler,  1.  c.  p.  68,  179.  Paulus,  Specim.  Verss.  Pentateuch!  septera 
Arab.  p.  58,  sqq. 


214  THE    VENETIAN    VERSION.  [^  5Q, 

manuscript  of  the  fourteenth  century,  containing  a  Greek 
translation  of  several  books  of  the  Old  Testament."  It 
is  the  only  copy.  This  version  belongs  to  the  middle 
ages.*  It  makes  frequent  use  of  the  Seventy,  and  the 
other  old  Greek  versions ;  and,  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Jewish  expositors,  follows  the  masoretic  (pointed) 
text,  with  a  slavish  fidelity.  It  is  written  in  a  sort  of 
mongrel  dialect,  and  is  proportionally  of  little  impor- 
tance for  criticism.' 

[The  manuscript  containing  this  celebrated  version  is 
a  long  quarto,  consisting  of  three  hundred  and  two  parch- 
ment leaves,  written  in  very  unusual  characters,  and  in 
the  Oriental  style  ;  so  that  its  first  page  occupies  the 
place  of  the  last  one  with  us.  It  is  divided  into  pas- 
sages, corresponding  to  the  Sabbath-readings  of  the 
Jews.  To  judge  from  the  common  means  of  estimating 
the  age  of  manuscripts,  it  belongs  to  the  fourteenth 
century.  It  contains  the  Pentateuch,  Proverbs,  Ruth, 
Song  of   Solomon,   Ecclesiastes,  Jeremiah's  Lamenta- 

"  Nova  Versio  Gr.  Proverbb.,  Eccles.,  Cant  Cant,  Ruthi,  (sic,)  Thren., 
Dan.  et  selectornm  Pentat  Locorum  ex  unico  S.  Marci  Bibliotli.  Cod.  Ven. 
nunc  primum  eruta  et  Notulis  illustr.  a  /.  Bapt.  Casp.  d'Ansse  de  Villoison. 
Reg.  Inscriptt  Acad.  Paris,  socius  (sic ;)  Argent  1784,  8vo.  Nova  Versio 
Greec.  Pentateuchi.  Ex  unico  S.  Marci  Bibliothec.  Cod.  Ven.  nunc  primum 
ed.  atque  recens.  Chrstph.  Frd.  Jlmmon.  pt  i.  Gen.  contin.  atque  Exod. ;  pt  ii. 
Levit  contin.  et  Num. ;  Erl.  1790 ;  pt  iii.  contin,  Deut  addenda,  Indicem, 
Comment  de  Usu,  Indole  et  ^Etate  hujus  Vers.  c.  Tab.  seri  incis, ;  ibid. 
179],  Bvo. 

*  See  the  different  opinions  in  Doderleiri's  Theol.  Beitrage,  vol.  iii.  p.  248. 
Bnins,  in  Eiddiorn's  Repert.  vol.  iv.  p.  281.  Michaelis,  Neue  Or.  Bib.  vol.  ii. 
p.  22G.  De  Rossi,  Var.  Lect  V.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  xxviii.  Eichhorn,  §  211,  p.  573, 
On  the  autlior,  see  Jlmmon,  Comment  vol.  iii.  p.  112.  Bertholdt,  p.  568. 
Ziegler,  Spruchwbrter,  p.  55.     Bauer,  Crit.  sac,  p.  286. 

"  Amman,  1.  c.  Dahkr,  Animadvers.  in  Vers.  Gr.  Prov.  Salom.  ex  Vers. 
Sancti  Marci  Bibliotheca  nuper  ed. ;  Arg.  1786,  8vo.  Pfannkuche,  on  pas- 
sages of  the  new  Greek  version  of  the  O.  T.  in  the  library  at  Venice,  in 
EicJihorn,  Ailg.  Bib.  vol.  viii,  p,  193,  sqq. 


^56.]  THE  VENETIAN  VERSION.  215 

tions,  and  Daniel.  It  is  an  imperfect  copy  of  an  old 
manuscript. 

It  was  made  directly  from  the  Hebrew  text.  It  ad- 
heres to  the  letter  of  the  text  more  than  any  other  an- 
cient version,  and  expresses  it  more  carefully,  and  with 
greater  regard  to  etymology  than  even  Aquila  himself 
Where  it  differs  from  him,  the  fact  must  be  explained  by 
the  direct  use  of  a  Hebrew  manuscript ;  for  consonants 
are  mistaken  for  one  another,  which  are  alike  only  in 
Hebrew.  In  the  Chaldee  parts  of  Daniel,  he  uses  the 
Doric  instead  of  the  Attic  dialect,  which  prevails  in  the 
rest  of  his  work.  The  orthography  of  proper  names  is 
carefully  preserved,  and  their  pronunciation  carefully  ex- 
pressed. He  unites  poetic  and  prosaic  forms  ;  Attic  ele- 
gance and  the  rudest  barbarisms  stand  side  by  side.  He 
is  fond  of  nice  Attic  expressions."  He  connects  the  most 
elegant  language  of  the  best  Greek  writers  with  expres- 
sions, new  and  un-Grecian,  which  he  had  coined,  or 
borrowed  from  his  contemporaries.  Sometimes  he  very 
happily  translates  a  doubtful  expression  in  the  Hebrew 
by  one  equally  ambiguous.  None  of  the  peculiarities  of 
the  original  seem  to  have  been  lost. 

In  respect  to  the  consonants,  he  had  the  complete 
masoretic  recension  before  him.  Sometimes  he  follows 
the  Keri ;  sometimes  the  Kethib.  No  one  has  hitherto 
discovered  readings  in  him  which  are  not  found  in  the 
present  masoretic  manuscripts,  and  none  peculiar  to  him 

"■  [Centoribus  atticis  undequaque  collectis  versionem  suam  distinguere 
gestivit  auctor  noster,  haud  secus  ac  scriptores  male  Latini,  qui,  ut  faciem 
et  speciem  conciliarent  orationi,  flosculis  undique  conquisitis  illam  ornare 
comptamque  reddere  cupiunt,  says  Ammon,  Comment,  p.  84,  sq. 

In  hoc  studio  auctoris  plane  singulari,  ut  una  ex  parte  venantur  atticis- 
mos,  ex  altera  autem  verba  hebraica  anxie  expriment,  admistis  soloBcismis 
et  vocabulis  plane  novis,  bona  grsecitas  subnasci  nullo  modo  poterat  Ibid, 
p.  95.] 


216  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [§  ^^* 

which  are  to  be  preferred  to  the  common  text.  Eich- 
horn  thinks  he  did  not  make  use  of  a  manuscript  with 
poirits,  since  he  sometimes  differs  from  the  present  point- 
ing, though  less  frequently  than  the  other  old  trans- 
lators. 

Before  the  sixth  century,  scarcely  any  one  could  have 
the  knowledge  possessed  by  this  translator,  and  make 
such  a  childish  mixture  of  old  and  new,  elegant  and  bar- 
barous, regular  and  lawless  speech  ;  and  after  the  tenth 
century,  our  present  punctuation  was  fixed,  and  a  trans- 
lator would  not  be  likely  to  reject  it.  In  some  places, 
he  follows  the  Jewish  scholars,  and  therefore  very  often 
agrees  with  the  Targums,  and  the  Vulgate,  which  had  a 
great  influence  on  the  rabbinic  explanations.  Whence 
it  appears  the  author  lived  between  the  sixth  and  tenth 
centuries.]" 


CHAPTER   II. 
DIRECT  ORIENTAL  VERSIONS. 

^57.  • 

I.    THE   CHALDEE  PARAPHRASES,   OR  TARGUMS. 
Origin  of  the  Chaldee  Paraphrases. 

After  the  extinction  of  the  Hebrew  language,  it  be- 
came customary  to  give  an  oral  explanation  in  Chaldee 
of  those  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  which  were 
read  in  the  synagogues.*    In  consequence  of  this  custom, 

"  [See  Amnwn.  1.  c,  and  Eichhom,  §  211.] 

*  Megilla,  col.  iv.  §  10,  ed.  Surenhusius :  « I'he  history  of  Reuben  is  read, 


^37.]  DIRECT    ORIEiNTAL    VERSIONS.  217 

it  is  certain  that  written  translations  were  soon  made 
into  this  language." 

["  The  original  language  of  Abraham  was  the  East 
Aramean  *  dialect,  which  was  commonly  called  the  Chal- 
dee,  from  the  Chaldees  in  Babylon,  who  used  it.  When 
Abraham  went  down  to  Palestine,  he  became  acquainted 
with  the  Shemitic  dialect  of  the  nation  in  the  midst  of 
whom  he  wandered  with  his  herds,  that  is,  with  that  of 
the  Canaanites,  or  Phoenicians,  as  the  Greeks  called 
them.  His  nearest  descendants  followed  him  in  this, 
and  so  the  Canaanitish  (or  Phoenician)  became  the  ver- 
nacular language  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham.  This 
was  not  commonly  called  Canaanitish,  or  Phoenician, 
but  Hebrew,  because  it  was  spoken  chiefly  by  the  sons 
of  Abraham,  who,  as  the  posterity  of  a  Hibri,  (man 
who  had  come  over  the  Euphrates  to  Canaan,)  took 
the  name  of  Hehreivs.  Yet  they  only  spoke  the  lan- 
guage called  Shemitic,  so  long  as  they  dwelt  in  the 
land  of  Canaan.  After  Nebuchadnezzar,  angry  at  their 
repeated  revolts,  had  carried  them  away  from  Canaan, 
to  the  Euphrates  and  Chaboras,  they  returned  again  to 
the  original  language  of  Abraham,  the  dialect  of  the  in- 
habitants of  these  latter  places. 

"Yet,  from  the  nature  of  things,  and  from  traces  that 

but  not  explained  (into  Chaldee;)  the  history  of  Tamar  is  read  (in  Chaldee) 
and  explained,"  &c.  Maimonides,  also,  authenticates  the  custom  of  reading 
in  Hebrew,  and  explaining  in  Chaldee.  Hilcoth  Tephillim,  ch.  xii.  Com- 
pare Vitnnga,  De  Synag.  Vet.  p.  689,  sqq.,  1015,  sqq.  Prideaux,  Connect,  pt 
ii.  b.  viii.  p.  527,  sqq. ;  Lond.  1720,  8vo.  There  is  a  trace  of  the  Targumic 
version  in  Matt,  xxvii.  46.  The  rabbins  R.  Asaria  (Meor  Enaim,  iii.  9) 
and  El.  Levita  (Prsef.  ad  Methurg)  follow  the  Talmud,  (Nedarim,  fol.  37, 
col.  2,)  and  place  the  origin  of  this  custom  too  high,  by  misunderstanding 
Neh.  viii.  8.     See  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  432. 

"  See  the  Hypothesis  of  an  oral  and  gradual  Origin  of  the  Targums,  ac- 
cording to  Asaria  and  El.  Levita,  1.  c.  in  Bartolocci,  Biblioth.  Rabb.  vol.  i.  p. 
406,  sqq.,  and  Carpzov,  1.  c.  p.  436.    Walton,  Prol.  xi.  7. 

'  [Gen.  xxxi.  47.] 

VOL.  I.  28 


218  DIRECT    ORlFaMAL    VERS10i>iS.  [^  57. 

are  left,  the  disuse  of  the  language  thej  had  hitherto 
employed  in  writing  and  conversation,  took  place  but 
gradually.  The  adult  men,  who  migrated  in  the  Baby- 
lonian exile,  even  in  the  foreign  land,  materially  adhered 
to  the  dialect  which  they  were  accustomed  to  use  from 
their  youth  up,  and  therefore  Ezekiel  addressed  his 
fellow-exiles  on  the  Chaboras  in  the  Hebrew  language. 
The  elder  generation  of  exiles  used  the  Chaldee  dialect 
only  so  far  as  it  was  indispensable  in  dealing  with  the 
natives  of  the  land. 

"  But  this  was  not  without  influence  on  the  Hebrew 
language,  whether  it  was  wiitten  or  spoken  by  them. 
I Qi perceptibly  it  acquired  an  Aramean  tinge,  by  receiv- 
ing Aramean  forms,  inflections,  and  idioms.  But  among 
such  as  had  grown  up  to  the  age  of  youth  or  manhood 
in  exile,  the  Aramean  became  far  more  common  than 
among  their  older  fellow-exiles  ;  and  by  their  twofold 
intercourse  with  the  Hebrews  and  the  Chaldees,  among 
whom  they  lived,  they  acquired  a  second  dialect,  which 
w^as  both  spoken  and  written.  Now,  in  the  age  of  this 
young  generation,  the  return  from  exile  took  place  ;  and 
with  this  second  dialect  in  their  mouths  the  Jews  came 
back  to  the  land  of  their  forefathers.  They  adhered  to 
the  Aramean  dialect  (which  was  the  most  frequent  with 
them)  as  the  language  of  conversation.  Yet,  among  the 
people,  some  knowledge  of  the  old  Hebrew  long  con- 
tinued, and  among  the  educated  portion  of  them,  we 
find  vestiges  of  attempts  to  write  it  until  within  a  hun- 
dred years  before  Christ.  Not  only  Haggai,  Zachariah, 
and  Malachi,  but  Ezra  also,  under  Artaxerxes  Longima- 
nus,  and  the  author  of  Daniel,  after  Antiochus  Epiph- 
anes,  wrote  in  the  old  Hebrew^,  —  if  not  in  the  purest 
style,  at  least  in  one  which  was  intelHgible  to  such  as 
understood  the  old  Hebrew." 


^57.]        DIRECT  ORIENTAL  VERSIONS.  219 

"After  this,  we  can  now  distinguish  three  Aramean 
dialects  ;  the  first  spoken  on  the  Euphrates,  the  second 
on  the  Jordan,  and  the  third  on  the  Orontes,  —  or  the 
Babylonian,  the  Palestinian,  and  the  Antiochian.  The 
first  must  have  been  the  purest ;  because,  in  its  original 
home,  it  was  spoken  under  the  same  influences,  with 
slight  exceptions,  which  had  acted  on  it  in  earlier  times. 
The  Chaldee  passages  in  Ezra  and  Daniel  show  its 
character  at  the  time  the  Jews  received  it.  But  they 
do  not  disclose  it  in  its  whole  compass,  for  they  are  too 
short,  and  are,  perhaps,  mixed  with  Hebrew  idioms. 
But  in  Ezra,  according  to  all  appearances,  the  Chaldee 
passages  originated  with  a  member  of  the  first  Jewish 
colony.  His  language  must  therefore  be  pure  ;  the  pas- 
sages of  Daniel  agree  with  it,  and  may  therefore  be  re- 
garded as  genuine  sources  of  the  language. 

"  The  returning  exiles  brought  the  Babylonian-Chal- 
dee  to  Palestine,  and  used  it  as  their  common  language, 
and  it  was  spoken  by  their  posterity  at  the  time  of  Christ. 
But  under  the  influence  of  different  neighbors  from  the 
inhabitants  of  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  in  the  course 
of  centuries,  it  must  have  been  altered  in  many  respects^ 
Many  foreign  words  must  have  been  introduced  ;  the 
pronunciation,  form,  and  inflections  of  words,  must  have 
changed. 

"  In  both  these  dialects  of  the  Chaldee  language,  there 
are  versions  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  difter  in  re- 
spect to  their  authors,  their  value,  and  the  date  of  their 
composition ;  but  they  are  generally  united  under  the 
common  title  Targums,  that  is,  the  most  excellent  ver- 
sions ;   for  such  they  were  in  the  eyes  of  a  Jew."]" 

"  [fi^Sltl  J  i-  e.  interpretation, 

See  the  derivation  and  meaning  of  the  word  in  fVolf,  Bib.  Heb.  ii.  1135, 


220  DIRECT    OKIF.NTAL    VKRSIONS.  [^  57. 

Although  we  cannot  prove  tlie  high  antiquity  of  these 
writings,  which  the  Jews  themselves  acknowledge  to  be 
a  later  collection  of  old  traditions,"  yet  we  may  justly  re- 
cede from  the  modern  skepticism  in  respect  to  them, 
which  in  general  is  quite  too  great.* 

[Eichhorn  opposes  the  antiquity  of  these  works,  and 
says  the  Jewish  history  of  the  Targums  contradicts 
itself,  and  shows  that  the  rabbins  and  the  Talmud  rather 
followed  uncertain  legends,  than  grave  history.  Extrav- 
agant pretensions  have  been  made,  by  some  modern 
writers,  respecting  their  antiquity.     Some  suppose  that 

sq.  The  word  originally  meant  a  translation  in  general ;  but  as  the  Je^'s 
had  no  translation  for  a  long  time,  except  tlie  Chaldee  paraphrases,  the  latter 
appropriated  the  word  exclusively  to  themselves,  so  that  other  translations  are 
called  by  a  different  name.  —  See  Eichhorn,  §  213.] 

"  Megilla,  fol.  3,  col.  1.  R.  Jlsaria,  El.  Lcviia,  1.  c.  Abarband,  on  Num. 
XV.  30.  Compare  Jl.  Pfeiffer,  Exercitt.  de  Targumim  in  Thcol.  Jud.  et  Mn- 
ham.  0pp.  ii.  864.     Wolf,  1.  c.  p.  1137.     See  §  58  and  50. 

*  Eichhorn,  §  213,  repeats,  with  some  modification,  the  arguments  of 
Jo.  Morinus,  (Exercit.  Bib.  p.  321,  sqq.,)  Havemann,  (Wegeleuchte  wider 
die  jud,  Finsterniss,  p.  594,)  and  J.  H.  Vorstius,  (Discerpt.  de  Sermone  Dei, 
p.  24,)  against  the  antiquity  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan.  But  these  have  been 
well  answered  by  .'J,  Pfeiffer,  (Crit.  sac.  ch.  8,  §  2,  quest.  1.  0pp.  ii.  p.  756, 
and  De  Targ.  p.  869,)  Jf'olf  Carpzov,  and  John.  The  silence  of  the  Fathers 
proves  nothing.  The  argument  drawn  from  Luke  iv.  17,  sqq.,  and  Acts  xiii. 
15,  for  the  use  of  the  LXX.  in  the  synagogues,  is  very  doubtful.  The  Tal- 
mud quotes  the  Targums  of  Onlcelos  and  Jonathan. 

[Walton  cites  the  foolish  statement  in  the  Talmud,  Zacut,  fol.  53,  sqq., 
wliich  says  Moses  made  Chaldee  paraphrases,  ivhich  Onkelos  and  Jonathan 
only  revived.  He  thinks,  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  a  popular  and  oral  paraphrase 
was  made  into  the  common  language,  but  no  written  one  was  made  before 
the  tiuie  of  Jonathan  and  Onkelos.  Prideaux,  1.  c,  supposes  there  were 
many  paraphrases  written  before  these  authors,  as  there  were  many  Greek 
versions  before  Origen  made  the  Hexapla.]  The  statement  that  the  Tar- 
gums arose  from  glosses  and  scholia,  may  be  seen  in  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii. 
p.  1143. 

We  see  a  trace  of  a  Targumic  translation  in  Matt,  xviii.  46.  A  written 
Targum  on  Job,  in  the  first  century,  is  mentioned  in  Tr.  Schabb,  fol.  115. 
Zunz,  p.  62.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  Josephus  used  the  Targums. 
ffannJinchef  in  Mchhoni's  Al\g,  JBib.  vol.  viii,  p.  47,  sq. 


^57.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  221 

Ezra  read  the  Law  to  the  Jews,  and  caused  it  to  be 
translated  into  Chaldee  to  them,  and  thus  left  an  ex- 
ample to  succeeding  teachers.  A  written  paraphrase 
would,  therefore,  naturally  arise  ;  and  this  supposition 
agrees  with  the  state  of  things  among  the  Jews  a  little 
before  the  time  of  Christ ;  for,  if  the  Hebrew  language 
was  extinct,  and  was  yet  read  in  the  synagogues,  a 
paraphrase  into  the  popular  tongue  was  needed  to  ren- 
der it  intelligible.  But  history  is  at  variance  with  this 
hypothesis ;  for  it  does  not  appear  that  Nehemiah  read 
the  luciw,  and  accompanied  it  with  a  Chaldee  para- 
phrase, but  only  that  he  caused  it  to  be  explained  to 
them  in  the  vernacular  language."  Imitation  of  his  prac- 
tice, therefore,  would  lead  to  no  ivritten  translation. 
The  two  passages  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  iv. 
17,  sqq.  Acts  xiii.  15)  do  not  allude  to  such  a  trans- 
lation. 

Subsequently  it  was  forbidden  to  read  a  translation 
out  of  a  hook,  in  the  synagogue  ;  the  passage  was  trans- 
lated orally — a  prohibition,  as  Eichhorn  thinks,  not  likely 
to  be  made,  if  this  version  was  ancient  and  well  known, 
especially  if  authorized  by  Nehemiah.  It  seems  to  have 
been  necessary  for  every  well-educated  Jew  to  be  able 
to  read  the  Scriptures  in  the  original  old  Hebrew;  and 
this  circumstance,  it  is  thought,  led  to  the  establishment 
of  the  synagogues,  where  the  youth  could  be  instructed 
in  this  language. 

There  was,  therefore,  he  concludes,  no  necessity  for 
Chaldee  paraphrases  before  the  time  of  Christ.  For 
several  centuries  after  him,  we  find  no  trace  of  them. 
The  Targums  are  never  mentioned  in  the  Mishna,  nor 
the  Jerusalem  Gemara.     Epiphanius,  a  Jew  by  birth,  and 

"    [Neh.  viii.  8.    i^ia    Siis    is  to  make  clear.'] 


•222  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^  57. 

that  diligent  scholar,  Origen,  make  no  mention  of  them. 
Jerome  knew  nothing  of  them,  though  he  was  deeply 
skilled  in  the  Hebrew,  and  intimate  with  Jewish  scholars. 
No  Jew  mentions  them  in  any  controversy  with  the 
Christians.  From  these  considerations,  it  appears,  the 
Jews  in  Palestine  could  not  have  had  such  paraphrases 
before  the  first  century  after  Christ ;  and  even  then  they 
were  probably  confined  mostly  to  private  use.  After- 
wards, when  the  old  Hebrew  was  far  less  known,  the 
Chaldee  paraphrases  were  introduced  to  the  synagogues." 

But  this  skepticism  seems  excessive  ;  for,  though  a 
written  paraphrase  was  not  allowed  in  the  synagogue,  it 
would  still  be  useful  at  home.  The  design  of  the 
prohibition  doubtless  was  to  make  the  teacher  more 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  original.  It  does  not 
appear  *■  that  the  old  Hebrew  could  be  understood  in 
Judea,  at  the  time  of  Christ,  without  an  explanation  ; 
and  in  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  where  read- 
ing the  Scriptures  is  spoken  of,  there  is  nothing  which 
forbids  us  to  suppose  the  section  was  explained  into  the 
common  tongue. 

Origen  and  Jerome  do  not  speak  of  the  Targums,  and 
were  doubtless  unacquainted  with  them.  The  former 
had  no  occasion  to  use  them,  and  was  rather  an  indiffer- 
ent Hebrew  scholar.  The  latter  himself  complains  of 
the  scarcity  of  Hebrew  books,  and  Elias  the  Levite 
says,  in  his  own  time,  there  was  not  more  than  one  or 
two  manuscripts  of  the  Targum,  or  the  Prophets,  or  the 
Hagiographa,  in  a  single  province.  Besides,  Jerome, 
though  a  good  Hebrician,  only  learned  the  Chaldee  late 
in  life,  and,  perhaps,  could  not  have  used  the  Targums, 

"  [Eichhorn,  §  213.] 

''  [See  Eichhorn,  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  viii.  p.  421—431.  Carpzov,  1.  c.  p.  430, 
eqq.,  and  WoJf,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  1139—1141.] 


^57.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  -223 

had  they  been  in  his  hands.  However,  it  is  remaikable 
that  none  of  his  four  Hebrew  teachers  should  mention 
these  versions.  There  is  a  good  reason  why  the  Jews 
should  never  appeal  to  them  in  controversies  with  the 
Christians  ;  for  the  latter  could  make  no  use  of  thein, 
and  while  they  preferred  the  Seventy  to  the  Hebrew  text, 
which  they  could  not  read,  they  would  treat  a  Chaldee 
paraphrase  of  it  as  a  deceitful  invention  of  the  hated 
Jews.  Maimonides  says  a  written  version  was  forbid- 
den in  the  synagogue  before  the  time  of  Onkelos  and 
Jonathan  ;  but  pointed  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  are 
still  forbidden  in  the  synagogue,  though  the  Jews  use 
them  in  private. 

Bertholdt"  has  made  a  good  use  of  these  stories.  The 
old  Jewish  story  that  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  derived 
their  Targums  from  more  ancient  oral  traditions,  cannot 
be  entirely  destitute  of  a  foundation  in  facts.  In  this 
way  it  may  be  placed  in  its  true  light.  The  circum- 
stance that  there  are  several  Targums  on  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  book  of  Esther,  which  were  the  first  and  the 
most  important  books  publicly  read,  and,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  on  the  other  books  there  is  only  one,  and  on 
some  of  them  not  one,  and  only  a  single  Targum  on 
the  five  Megilloth,  is  a  striking  proof  that  the  whole 
matter  began  with  the  synagogue,  and  that  the  Targums 
of  the  first-named  books  were  designed  for  use  in  the 
synagogue.  In  order  to  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  this 
hypothesis,  that  the  present  Targums  on  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets  were  composed  from  fragmentary  transla- 
tions or  paraphrases  of  these  books,  we  need  only  cast 
our  eyes  on  the  Jerusalem  Targum  ;  for  this  is  merely  a 
fragmentary    and    imperfect   collection    of   some    small 

"   [P.  572,  sqq.] 


224  DIRECT  ORIENTAL  VERSIONS.         [^  ^^• 

Targums  of  the  synagogue  at  Jerusalem  on  the  Penta- 
teuch. It  is  quite  a  recent  production,  though  it  con- 
tains some  old  ingredients.] 

The  present  Targums  are  in  a  very  uncertain  state  in 
respect  to  their  punctuation  and  their  text."  [At  first 
they  were  written  without  points ;  but  when  points 
were  used  in  the  Hebrew,  they  were  gradually  applied 
to  the  paraphrase  also.  But,  at  first,  the  present  strict 
rules  of  punctuation  were  unknown,  and  copyists  took 
great  license  in  pointing  ;  and  since  the  Targums  were 
not  watched  over  by  the  same  jealous  care  which  guard- 
ed the  original  text,  greater  errors  crept  into  them.  At- 
tempts have  been  made  to  supply  this  defect,  especially 
by  Buxtorf;  but  their  punctuation  is  still  uncertain. 
The  text  also  has  been  greatly  corrupted.  One  version 
is  interpolated,  or  corrected,  from  another,  and  some- 
times the  Targum  is  altered  from  the  Hebrew.  One 
copy  of  a  Targum  will  express  the  old  Hebrew  reading, 
where  another  forsakes  it,  to  agree  with  the  other  old 
translations  of  the  Bible.  And  the  editors  of  the  Tar- 
gums have  sometimes  applied  their  hands  to  passages 
which  had  escaped  other  dangers.'' 

The  Hebrew  text  has  sometimes  been  corrected 
from  the  Targums.  Their  division  of  words  and  verses 
has  sometimes  been  followed,  and  difficult  passages 
have  been  satisfactorily  explained.  These  writings 
were  highly  esteemed  by  the  Jews,  and  therefore  in 
some  ages  the  Christians  have  sought  arguments  from  this 
source  to  facilitate  their  conversion  to  Christianity.]" 

See  El.  Levita,  Prsef.  ad  Methurg.  Buxtorf  improved  the  punctuation 
of  the  Targums.  [But  his  work  has  been  severely  criticised  by  Simon. 
Hist.  crit.  du  V.  T.  p.  300,  sqq.,  507.  Compare  Buxtorf  s  punctuation  in  the 
Biblia  Hebraica  cum  Masora,  with  the  Targums  in  the  Antwerp  and  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglots.] 

*  [Etc/iAom,  §  216,  217.]  ^  [EtcMorn,  §  218,  sqq.] 


^  38.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  223 

§38. 
1.    The  Targum  of  Onkelos. 

We  have  only  very  uncertain  accounts  of  the  person 
and  age  of  Onkelos.  (oiipais  •) " 

[But  these  uncertain  and  contradictory  accounts  may 
in  some  measure  be  reconciled.  He  seems  to  have  been 
a  Babylonian  Jew.  This  appears,  as  Eichhorn  thinks, 
from  the  fact  that  there  is  an  account  of  him  in  the 
Babylon,  but  not  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  ;  from  the 
dialect  in  vv^hich  his  paraphrase  is  written  ;  from  his  free- 
dom from  Jewish  fables ;  and  from  the  circumstance  that 
Origen  and  Jerome  were  not  acquainted  with  this  Tar- 

°  Cnip31!*  •     In  the  Babylonian  Talmud  he  is  mentioned  four  times. 

1.  Megilla,  fol.  1,  col.  5 :  "  Onkelos,  a  proselyte,  wrote  a  paraphrase  of  the 
Law,  from  the  mouth  of  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Joshua."  In  the  Jerusalem  Tal- 
mud, Tract.  Megil.  fol.  1,  col.  3,  the  same  is  said  of  Aquilas,  who,  from  the 
connection,  seems  to  be  a  Greek  translator.  See  R.  Asaria,  Meor  Enaim, 
p.  146,  b.    Comp.  Morinns,  1.  c.  p.  431,  and  Eichhorn,  §  210. 

2.  There  is  a  similar  confusion  about  Onkelos  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud, 
Demai  Thosaphta,  ch.  5,  and  in  the  Jerusalem,  Demai,  fol.  25,  col.  4. 

3.  Onkelos,  son  of  Calonymus,  and  grandson  of  Titus,  (who  is  mentioned 
in  Bab.  Avoda  Sara,  fol.  11,  col.  1,  ed.  Edzard,  p.  78,  Gittin.  fol.  56,  col.  2,) 
is  probably  the  Greek  Aquila,  to  judge  from  what  Epiphanius  says  of  him, 
De  Pond,  et  Mens.  ch.  15. 

4.  According  to  Avoda  Sara,  fol.  11,  col.  1,  ed.  Edzard,  p.  51,  and  To- 
siphta  Schabb.  ch.  8,  he  must  have  been  an  older  contemporary  of  Ga- 
maliel. 

However,  this  is  the  same  Onkelos  who  is  mentioned  in  the  Gemara,  for 
they  are  mentioned  in  passages  that  are  near  one  another.  The  book  Zo- 
har,  in  the  section  ti'I'ri  "^^ns  on  Lev.  xviii.  4,  col.  131,  makes  him  a  scholar 
of  Hillel  and  Shammai,  and  obviously  sets  him  too  high.  From  tlie  purity 
of  his  style,  it  has  been  concluded  that  he  was  a  Babylonian ;  for  it  is  sup- 
posed a  more  corrupt  dialect  prevailed  in  Palestine.  But  this  conclusion  is 
uncertain ;  still  less  certain  is  that  drawn  from  the  silence  of  the  Jerusalem 
Gemara.  Against  Eichhorn,  §  222,  and  Bertholdt,  p.  576,  see  Winer,  De 
Onkeloso,  ejusque  Paraphrasi  Chald. ;  Lips.  1820,  4tQ.  p.  8,  sqq.  Morinus, 
1.  c.  p.  343,  places  him  too  low. 

VOL.  I.  29  .k 


226  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^  58. 

gum,  as  they  must  have  been,  he  thinks,  if  it  had  been 
w^ritten  or  used  in  Jerusalem,  or  its  vicinity.  He  was, 
probably,  a  contemporary  of  the  Savior,  if  any  one  may 
venture  to  decide  in  so  perplexed  a  matter.  Some  place 
him  later,  and  others  earlier.]" 

His  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch,  written  in  pure  Chal- 
dee,  is  a  faithful  and  literal  version,  except  that  it  never 
reflects  the  hues  of  the  original,  and  contains  arbitrary 
alterations  of  the  text.''  It  contains,  also,  great  addi- 
tions to  the  poetic  passages,  which  many  ascribe  to  the 
hand   of  an  interpolator."     The   best   argument  for  its 

"  [See  the  authorities  in  Carpzov,  p.  441,  sqq..  and  Wolf,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p. 
1147,  sqq.] 

*  On  the  omission  of  the  anthropopathies,  obscenities,  &c.,  see  Winer, 
De  Onkcloso,  &c.  p.  36,  sqq. 

"  Helvicus,  De  Paraph.  Chald.  c.  3,  and  Carpzov,  1.  c.  p.  456.  [But  all  the 
poetic  passages  are  not  of  this  character ;  e.  g.  the  song  of  Moses  after  the 
passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  Deut  xxxiii.,  which  is  not  uniformly  expand- 
ed, like  Gen.  xlix.,  for  example.] 

Editions  of  this  Work.  —  Bologna,  1482,  folio,  accompanied  with  the 
Hebrew  text,  and  JarcMs  Com.  (Comp.  De  Rossi,  Annal.  Heb.  Typog. ; 
Farm.  1795,  4to.  p.  24.  O.  G.  Tychsen,  Krit.  Beschreib.  des  Bonon.  Pent,  in 
Eichkorn's  Repert.  vol.  vi.  p.  65.)  See  an  account  of  other  editions  in  the  15th 
and  16th  centuries,  in  Le  Long,  ed.  Masch,  pt.  i.  ch.  ii.  sect.  2,  pt.  ii.  vol.  i.  sect. 
a,  §  13.  De  Rossi,  pp.  73,  81, 150.  Winer,  p.  16.  It  was  printed  in  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot,  1517 ;  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  L569 ;  in  tiie  three  Bom- 
berg  Bibles,  Venice,  1518, 1526, 1547 — 1549,  probably  from  a  MS. ;  afterwards 
it  was  printed  in  the  Rabbinical  Bible  of  Buxtorf,  (Bas.  1618,  1719,)  who  has 
been  falsely  accused  of  violent  treatment  of  the  text,  (see  Eichhorn,  vol.  i. 
p.  437,  3d  edition,  and  his  milder  remarks  in  the  4th,  vol.  ii.  p.  38,)  though  he 
only  altered  the  punctuation.  It  is  also  printed  in  tlie  Paris  and  London 
Polyglots,  1657. 

For  the  criticism,  see  Philoxenus,  sive  de  Onkelosi  Chald.  Pentateuchi 
vers,  dissert,  hermaneut.  crit.  in  qua  vet.  paraphrastaj  e  textu  Heb.  crebra;  de- 
flexiones  in  xx.xii.  classes  distribuuntur,  et  lucido,  novoque  ordine  illustrantur 
atque  cocci,  in  locis  variee  ejusd.  vers,  lectiones  perpenduntur,  et  ex  anti- 
quioribus  editt.  codd.  que  emendantur,  a  Sam.  Dav.  Luzatto,  in  coll.  Rabb. 
Patavino,  Prof.;  Vienna,  1830.  Comp.  the  Allg.  Litt.  Zeitung.  1832,  3d 
Stiicke.  It  was  translated  by  Paul  Fagius,  1556,  fol.  For  the  accentuation 
of  this  Targum,  see  Masora  Hattargum. 


^58.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  227 

high  antiquity  lies  in  its  character.  Its  doctrinal  expla- 
nations are  very  simple.  It  explains  Gen.  xlix.  10,  and 
Num.  xxiv.  17,  as  relating  to  the  Messiah.  It  contains 
additions  to  the  poetic  passages,  which  some  consider 
interpolations. 

[This  is  the  only  good  Targum,  and  is  far  above  all 
comparison  with  any  of  the  others.  The  style  is  pure, 
and  resembles  that  of  the  Chaldee  parts  of  Daniel  and 
Ezra.  This  version  follows  the  original  text,  word  for 
word,  so  closely  that  it  may  be  sung  with  the  same  ac- 
cents as  the  original.  Sometimes  it  gives  the  sense 
rather  than  the  words.  It  avoids  figurative  expressions, 
which  relate  to  the  Deity."  In  some  few  instances,  a 
different  plan  is  pursued,  and  the  Targum  gives  less  a 
version  than  an  explanation.  Gen.  xlix.,  Num.  xxiii. 
24,  Deut.  xxxii.  33,  are  instances  of  this  treatment  of 
the  text.  This  difference  does  not  arise  from  a  corrup- 
tion of  the  text,  and  still  less  from  carelessness  of  the 
author,  for  the  expressions  are  chosen  with  careful  at- 
tention ;  but  these  passages  stand  as  they  were  read  in 
the  synagogues  to  the  people.  They  are  not  translations, 
but  explanations,  and  these  passages  are  such  as  were 
deemed  of  great  importance  by  the  Jews.  Jonathan 
and  the  Targum  of  Jerusalem  have  treated  them  in  the 
same  manner. 

Where  this  Targum  differs  from  the  received  text,  it  is 
usually  supported  by  other  ancient  versions;  and  this 
shows   that  the  text  once  contained  the  peculiar  read- 

"  [E.  g.  Gen.  lii.  5  :  You  shall  become  gods.  Qirri^b*  in  the  original , 
shall  become  princes,  T'lj^plij  in  Onkelos.  Again,  v.  5, 8,  the  voice  of  Je- 
hovah Elohim,  {the  Lord  God,)  in  the  original ;  it  is  the  voice  of  the  word  of 
the  Lord  God,  in  the  Targum.     So  the  celebrated  passage  in  Ex.  xxxiii.  23, 

'i^ris  tl54  J   is  rendered  tclmt  is  after  me,   i'it',^'1   rii  •] 


228  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [%  59. 

ings.  The  Jews  held  the  work  of  Onkelos  in  high 
esteem,  since  it  furnished  them  with  the  explanations  of 
many  words.  They  even  furnished  the  text  of  it  with 
accents,  as  in  the  original." 

"  The  Samaritan  dialect  agrees  with  the  Chaldee  — 
excepting  a  few  variations  —  in  grammar,  and  in  the 
use  of  several  words  ;  therefore  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  that  the  Samaritans  made  great  use  of  Onkelos  in 

translating  the  Pentateuch  into  their  dialect In 

the  printed  copies  of  the  Samaritan  version,  their  close 
agreement  with  Onkelos  is  remarkable ;  but  it  is  far 
more  striking  in  the  Barberine  Triglot,  where  Onkelos 
is  copied  almost  literally  in  all  the  sections,  where  the 
Samaritan-Hebrew  does  not  differ  from  the  Jewish-He- 
brew Pentateuch."*] 


§59. 
2.     Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel. 

This  Targum  on  the  former  and  the  later  Prophets 
has  the  pretended  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  for  its  author. 
He  is  said  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  Hillel,  and  therefore 
must  have  lived  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  have 
written  before  Onkelos.  [The  life  of  Jonathan  is  en- 
veloped in  fables.  Sometimes  it  is  said  that  he  was  the 
disciple  of  Hillel  the  elder,  whom  tradition  makes  head 
of  the  academy  at  Jerusalem,  about  thirty  years  before 
Christ.  But  sometimes  it  is  said  he  derived  the  mate- 
rials for  his  Targum  from  the  mouth  of  Haggai,  Zacha- 
riah,  and  Malachi,  and  yet  lived  in  the  age  of  Hillel ;  so 
that  he  must  have  lived  three  centuries,  at  the  least. 

»  Eichhorn,  §  223,  sqq,  "  [Eichfwm,  §  225,  b.] 


^  59.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  229 

But  Others  think  he  lived  at  the  date  alleged,  and  re- 
corded a  tradition  said  to  have  proceeded  from  their 
prophets. 

But  there  is  good  reason  for  believing  he  flourished  at 
a  later  date.  He  was  evidently  a  Palestine  Jew,  —  for 
no  other  man  could  have  believed  his  wondrous  legends, 
—  and  yet  the  Jerusalem  Gemara,  Origen,  and  Jerome, 
knew  nothing  of  this  Targum.  But  this  fact  might 
easily  be  accounted  for  while  the  work  remained  ob- 
scure. Again,  he  retails  fables  which  did  not  come  into 
circulation  till  a  later  date.  He  seeks  to  explain  away 
the  passages  respecting  Christ  which  the  Christians  in-^ 
terpreted  in  their  favor.  From  these  considerations, 
Eichhorn  concludes  it  could  not  have  been  written  before 
the  fourth  century  after  Christ.  Jahn  places  it  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  third  century,  and  Morinus  and  Vos- 
sius  bring  it  down  to  the  seventh  or  eighth.  But  they 
do  not  sufficiently  consider  the  purity  of  its  style,  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  Jewish  writings  of  that  date.] 

The  Talmud  says  of  him,  "  Our  rabbins  inform  us 
that  Hillel  the  elder  had  eighty  disciples,  thirty  of  whom 
were  worthy  ;  the  Shekinah  dwelt  above  them,  as  above 

Moses,  our  teacher But  thirty  were  so  worthy 

that  the  sun  might  stay  for  them,  as  for  Joshua  the  son 
of  Nun.  Twenty  among  them  were  intermediate  men," 
between  them.  The  greatest  of  all  was  Jonathan  the  son 
of  Uzziel,  and  the  least  of  all  was  Jonathan  the  son  of 

Saccai They  say  of  Jonathan  the  son  of  Uzziel, 

that,  when  he  was  sitting  down  at  work  upon  the  Law, 
if  a  bird  happened  to  fly  over  him,  it  was  immediately 
burnt  up."* 

Again,  "  Jonathan  son  of  Uzziel  wrote  his  paraphrase 

*  Baba  Bathra.  fol.  134,  col.  1.    Compare  Succa,  fol.  28,  col.  1 


230  DIRECT    ORIENTAL   VERSIONS.  [^  59. 

on  the  Prophets,  from  the  mouth  of  Haggai,  Zachariah, 
and  Malachi.  Then  the  land  of  Israel  was  shaken  for 
four  hundred  parasangs ;  the  voice  of  God"  came  forth, 
and  said,  '  Who  is  he  that  has  revealed  my  secrets  to 
the  sons  of  men  ? '  Jonathan  the  son  of  Uzziel  stood 
upon  his  feet,  and  said,  '  It  is  I,  who  have  revealed  thy 
secrets  to  the  sons  of  men.'  "* 

Some  have  contested  the  claim  of  this  Targum  to 
antiquity,  but  on  insufficient  grounds  ;  namely,  from  the 
silence  of  the  Fathers,  from  the  presence  of  more  mod- 
ern fables,  —  whose  date  and  origin,  however,  cannot  be 
determined,  —  from  the  impurity  of  its  style,  which  is 
yet  similar  to  that  of  Onkelos.''  The  statement  that 
it  attempts  to  explain  away  the  passages  relating  to  the 
Messiah,  is  entirely  without  foundation.''  Some  later 
passages  may  have  been  interpolated.*  The  fact  that 
Jonathan  cites  passages  from  the  Pentateuch  according 
to  Onkelos,  seems  rather  to  prove  a  later  date.  But 
Havernik^  thinks  that  Onkelos  has  made  use  of  Jona- 
than. The  greater  simplicity  of  Onkelos  may  be  regard- 
ed as  a  proof  that  he  is  the  oldest ;  but  the  explanation 
of  the  Law  admitted  less  freedom  than  the  Proph- 
ets.^     It  has    been  erroneously    maintained   that,   be- 

>'  A.  Pfeiffer,  1.  c.  p.  876.  Walther,  Offic.  Bib.  p.  256.  Wolf,  vol.  iL 
p.  1159. 

'  Eichhorn,  §  226.    Berfholdt,  p.  579,  sqq.    Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  193,  sqq. 

•^   Gesenius,  Jes.  vol.  i.  p.  66,  sqq. 

'  Zimz,  p.  63,  against  Morinns,  Ex.  Bib.  p.  321,  sq.,  and  /.  Vossiiis,  who 
date  it  too  low.  See  Ifolf,  1.  c.  p.  1160,  sqq.,  and  Bertkoldt,  p.  580.  [JVolf 
places  it  a  little  before  Christ ;  Bertholdt  thinks  the  work  could  not  have 
been  written  before  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century.] 

/  P.  78. 

^  Targ.  Jud.  v.  26,  agrees  with  Targ.  Deut  xxii.  5 ;  Targ.  2  Kings  iv.  6, 
almost  tlie  same  witli  Targ.  Deut.  xxiv.  16 ;  Targ.  Jer.  xlviii.  45,  46,  uniform 
with  Targ.  Num.  xxi.  28,  29.  —  Zunz,  p.  68. 


^  59.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  231 

cause  the  historical  books  were  translated  more  literally 
than  the  prophetic,  there  must  have  been  two  different 
authors. 

The  version  is  less  faithful  and  more  paraphrastic  than 
that  of  Onkelos,"  and  therefore  its  critical  and  exeget- 
ical  value  is  less.  [Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  and  Jahn, 
think  the  author  collected  the  Targums  of  several  rab- 
bins, perhaps  corrected  them,  here  and  there,  and  re- 
duced them  to  a  whole.  The  arguments  in  favor  of 
several  authors  are  somewhat  satisfactory.  In  the  early 
Prophets,  the  version  is  pretty  close  and  literal ;  in  the 
later,  it  often  "  swims  in  a  flood  of  words,"  and  is  para- 
phrastic. In  Joshua  and  Judges,  it  is  simple  and  literal ; 
in  Samuel  and  Kings,  it  is  more  free.  Ruth  is  disfigured 
by  rabbinical  legends.  Talmudic  stories  are  sometimes 
inserted  in  Samuel.*  In  the  later  Prophets,  the  manner 
of  the  version  is  not  uniform  ;  for  a  whole  series  of 
chapters,  it  will  be  pretty  close  and  literal ;  then  it  is 
loose  and  discursive.     It  renders  poetry  tame.'] 


"  Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  76,  77. 

^  [E.  g.  1  Sam.  ii.  1 — 8,  where  a  romantic  interpolation  is  made ;  1  Sam. 
xvii.  12 — 31,  additions  to  the  story  of  Goliah ;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  3,  sqq.; 
1  Kings  iv.  33,  Solomon's  knowledge  of  natural  history  is  taken  in  a  mys- 
tical sense.] 

'  [Eichhorn,  §  227.] 

Editions  of  this  Targom.  —  First  at  Leiria,  1494,  fol.,  with  the  Hebrew 
text  and  the  commentaries  of  Kimchi,  and  Levi,  son  of  Gerson.  See  De  Bosd, 
Anna],  p.  104.  Afterwards  it  was  printed  in  the  Rabbinical  Bibles  of  Bom- 
berg  and  Buxtorf,  and  in  the  London  Polyglot.  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah, 
and  Jonah,  by  Robt.  Stephens,  1546.  Chald.  Jona-thse  Uzzielis  Filii  Interpret. 
per  J.Mercerum;  Pav.  1557,  4to.,  ex  Offic.  Car.  Stephens.  Amos,  Oba- 
diah, and  Nahum,  per  J.  Mercerum ;  ibid.  1557,  4to.  Micah,  Nahum,  Habak- 
kuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zachariah,  Malachi ;  ibid.  1552,  4to.  Hosea  Hebr. 
cum  Targ.  Jonath.  et  Comment  Raschii,  Ahen  Ezrce,  et  Kimchi,  per  Herm. 
von  der  Hardt ;  Helmst.  1702,  4to. ;  reprinted  by  Michaelis,  Gbtt.  1775, 
4to.  [The  MSS.  often  differ  from  the  printed  text  LUientJial,  Com.  crit 
duorum  Codd.,  &c.,  (Lips.  1770, 8vo.  p.  50,)  as  cited  by  Eichhorn,  §  230. 


232  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [§  60. 

§60. 

3.     The  Targum  of  the  Pseudo-Jonathan,  on  the 
Pentateuch. 

A  Targum  on  the  five  books  of  Moses  is  attributed  to 
the  same  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel."  But  from  its  meaner 
style  and  other  characteristics,  and  from  the  references 
to  later  events,  it  is  judged  to  belong  to  a  }3eriod  far 
more  recent.* 

[It  is  only  the  late  writers  of  the  Talmud  who  ascribe 
this  to  Jonathan.  They  seem  to  have  thought  it  strange 
he  s-hould  translate  the  Prophets,  but  not  the  Law. 
Eichhorn  thinks  it  was  written  after  the  sixth  century, 
from  the  following  reasons  :  It  mentions  the  Mishna^ 
which  originated  in  the  third  century ;  Constantinople^ 
which  first  received  that  name  in  the  fourth ;  and  it 
speaks  of  Lomhardy,  which  was  not  possessed  by  the 
Lombards  till  570.  It  is  filled  with  stories  too  absurd 
to  repeat.  It  details  the  conversation  between  Cain  and 
Abel,  before  the  former  murdered  the  latter;  and  makes 
Og,  the  giant,  place  a  mountain  on  his  head  six  miles  high. 


The  Venice  edition  of  1518,  is  the  basis  of  all  that  has  been  since  pub- 
lished.    Ibid.] 

"  R.  Menachem  Rekanattnsis,  Com.  ad  Lev.  xiv,  7.  R.  Asaria,  1.  c.  iii.  9. 
R.  Gedaliah,  Schalschel.  Habak.  fol.  28,  col.  1.  Pet.  Galatin,  De  Arcan. 
oath.  Verit.  i.  3.  P.  Fagiiis,  Prsef.  in  Paraph.  Onkel.,  and  others,  cited  by 
Jl.  Pfdffer,  1.  c.  p.  875. 

''  Morimis,  p.  322,  sqq.  A.  Pfeiffer,  p.  878,  et  al.  fViner  de  Jonathanis 
in  Pentat.  Paraph.  Chald.  spec,  i. ;  Erl.  1823,  4to.  J.  H.  Petermann,  De  duo- 
bus  Pentat.  Paraphrasibus  Chald.  pt  i.  de  Indole  Paraph.,  quae  Jonathanis 
esse  dicitur ;  Berol.  1829,  8vo. 

Editions.  —  First,  with  the  Hebrew  Text,  Onkelos,  the  Jerusalem  Tar- 
gum, and  RasckPs  Com.  by  Ascher  Phorins ;  Venice,  1590,  1594,  8vo. ;  Han. 
1614,  8vo. ;  Amst  1640,  4to. ;  Frag.  1646,  8vo. ;  and  in  the  Lond.  Poly- 
glot, vol.  iv. 


§61.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIOxNS.  233 

It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  the  work  is  of  little  value 
to  the  critic,  for  "  it  contains  more  figments,  of  the  most 
monstrous  character,  than  Mahomet's  Alcoran  ;  jet  it 
is  not  to  be  wrested  from  the  hands  of  Christians ;  for 
there  is  no  book  so  bad  but  something  may  be  learned 
from  it."]" 

§61. 
4.  The  Jerusalem  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch. 

This  Targum  extends  only  to  single  verses,  and  often 
to  separate  words.  Its  affinity  with  the  former  has  been 
long  acknowledged.  It  is  nothing  but  a  diiferent  recen- 
sion of  that  which  is  often  cited  with  the  title  Jerusa- 
lem Targum.  The  codex  which  forms  the  basis  of  our 
editions  was  made  by  taking  different  passages  and 
words  out  of  some  other  recension.* 

[It  agrees  with  the  Pseudo- Jonathan  in  whole  pas- 
sages ;  but  sometimes  it  repeats  his  fables,  and  some- 
times abbreviates  them.  Sometimes  the  Hebrew  text 
is  not  translated  ;  at  others  there  are  several  translations 
of  the  same  passage.  The  manuscripts  differ  widel}' 
from  one  another.  Kimchi  cites  passages  from  this 
Targum  which  are  not  now  to  be  found  in  it.  Long 
additions  are  often  made  to  the  text  of  the  Bible,  and 
foolish  fables  are  subjoined. 

Thus  it  adds,  "  When  Esau  fell  upon  Jacob's  neck 
and  kissed  him,  he  bit  him  severely ;  but  Jacob's  neck 
was  changed  to  alabaster,  and  the  fragments  clung  to 
the  teeth  of  the  treacherous  brother." 

This  Targum  covers  the  whole  Pentateuch,  but  does 


"  [Carpzov  p.  459,  sqq.    Eichkorn,  §  231,  sqq." 
'  Zunz,  p,  66,  sqq. 

VOL.  I.  30 


234  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [%^1* 

not  include  every  chapter.  It  seems  to  liave  arisen 
from  the  notes  some  one  wrote  on  the  margin  of  his 
manuscript,  which  he  had  collected  from  the  other 
Targums,  the  teaching  of  the  synagogue,  and  his  own 
fancy.  Subsequent  transcribers  added  to  the  collection, 
and  so  it  came  down  to  us,  a  collection  of  fragments, 
without  wholeness  or  unity. 

The  style  is  various.  Latin,  Greek,  and  Persian 
words  occur  frequently,  as  well  as  modern  geograph- 
ical names.  This  is  a  proof  of  its  late  composition. 
The  style  differs  as  much  from  that  of  Onkelos  and 
Jonathan,  as  the  style  of  Thomas  Aquinas  differs 
from  that  of  Cicero,  and  Apuleius  from  Livy.  It 
claims  no  higher  antiquity  than  the  sixth  century, 
and  is  of  scarce  any  value  for  criticism  or  exegesis. 
Not  a  single  good  reading  is  to  be  expected  from  this 
source.  However,  something  has  been  gleaned  from 
it  of  use  in  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament." 
There  is  also  a  Jerusalem  Targum  on  the  Proph- 
ets.' T'he  following  passage  in  Zach.  xii.  10  is  all 
that  has  been  found  of  it :  "I  will  pour  out  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  and  faithful  prayer  on  the  house  of  David, 
and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  Afterwards,  the 
Messiah,    the    son    of    Ephraim,    shall    go    out   to  war 

"  [See  Bart.  Mayer,  Philolog.  sac.  pt.  p.  ii.  184 — 200.  Owen,  1.  c,  has  con- 
demned this  Targum  in  bitter  words.  Plura  etenim  figmentorum  monstra 
in  ipso  Mahomitico  Alcorano  non  inveniri,  quam  in  paraphrasin  istam  co- 
acerravit  impurus  audaciorum  artifex,  haud  vereor  affirmare.  Vix  quidquam 
est  putidissimarum  neeniarum,  apud  ineptissimos  Talmudistas,  quod  in  cen- 
tonem  suum  non  retulit  insignitse  audacise  impostor.  Indignus  plane  liber 
iste  stercoreus,  qui  locum  ilium  inter  legis  expositiones,  enarrationes  aut 
Targumim  occupet] 

''  [Eichhorn,  §  235,  sqq.,  Carpzov,  Wolf,    and  Bertholdt.] 
Editions  of  this  Targum.  —  In  the  i?om6erg"  Bible,  (Venice,  1518,  et 
sqq.,)  and  in  the  London  Polyglot,  vol.  iv.     See  Zunz,  p.  77,  sqq.     Brum, 
in  EichhorvUs  Repert.  vol.  xv.  p.  174. 


§  62.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  235 

with  Gog.  Gog  shall  slay  him  before  the  gates  of  Je- 
rusalem. Then  they  will  consult  me,  and  ask,  'Why 
have  the  people  pierced  the  Messiah,  the  son  of  Ephra- 
im?'  And  they  shall  mourn  over  him,  as  a  father 
and  mother  mourn  over  their  only  son  ;  and  shall  la- 
ment over  him,  as  they  lament  over  the  first-born."] 


^62. 
5.     The  other  Targums. 

We  have  also  a  Targum  on  the  five  Megilloth  —  Ruth, 
Esther,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles." 
Besides  this,  there  are  two  on  the  book  of  Esther;*  one 
on  the  other  Hagiographa,  namely,  on  the  Psalms,' 
Job,*^  and  the  Proverbs  ;  and  one  on  the  Chronicles.* 

The  Targum  on  the  Proverbs  adheres  pretty  well  to 
the  text.^  But  that  on  Job  and  the  Psalms  is  in  the 
paraphrastic  manner  of  Jonathan.     All  three  belong  to 


"  Printed  in  the  Rabbinical  Bibles  and  the  Polyglots,  and  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  with  RaschVs  Comment. ;  Venice,  1524. 

*  One  of  them  printed  in  the  former  Targum  on  Esther,  the  Pentateuch, 
and  the  five  Megilloth,  (Venice,  1591,  8vo.,)  and  often  since;  with  the 
Pseudo-Jonathan,  (Basil,  1607,)  and  in  tlie  Lond.  Polyglot.  See  other 
editions  in  Wolf,  p.  1178.  Both  are  printed  in  Targum  prius  et  poster ius, 
in  Estheram,  nunc  primum  in  ling.  Lat.  trans.,  &c.  Op.  Franc.  Taiteri ; 
Lond.  1655,  4to. 

"  In  tlie  Rabbinical  Bible  and  Polyglots,  and  in  GiustinianVs  Polyg.  Ps. ; 
Gen.  1516. 

^  Ed.  Joh.  Terentius;  Frank.  1663. 

'  E  Cod.  Erford,  ed.  M.  F.  Beck;  Aug.  Vind.  1680,  1683,  4to.  E  Cod. 
Cantab,  ed.  Dav.  Wilkins ;  Amst  1715,  4to. 

•''  On  its  affinity  with  the  Syriac,  see  Dathe,  De  Ratione  Consensus  Vers. 
Chald.  et  Syr.  Prov.  Sal. ;  Lips,  1764,  4to.  Opusc.  p.  109,  sqq.  Compare 
Bauer,  Chrest.  Chald.  p.  140.  See,  on  the  other  side,  Havernik,  p.  87.  It 
was  printed  at  Leiria,  1492.     See  De  Rossi,  Annal.  p.  92. 


236  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^62. 

the  same  country,  and  about  the  same  time."  The  Tar- 
gum  on  the  five  Megilloth  goes  very  freely  into  arbitrary 
explanation  and  embellishment.  It  belongs  to  the  pe- 
riod after  the  Talmud.* 

[1.  The  author  of  the  Targum  on  the  five  Megilloth 
is  unknown  ;  it  bears  marks  of  several  hands,  but  this 
trait  is  common  to  all  parts  of  it.  "  It  makes  the  He- 
brew text  swim  in  a  flood  of  Chaldee  words  and  super- 
stitious fables."  Some  parts  are  translated  with  more 
freedom  than  others.  The  Targum  on  Ruth  and  the 
Lamentations  is  the  best ;  that  on  Ecclesiastes  is  more 
prolix;  but  it  contains  edifying  remarks,  and  applies 
general  rules  to  particular  cases.  The  Targum  on  Sol- 
omon's Song  is  the  most  intolerable,  and  is  merely  a 
fulsome  panegyric  on  the  Jewish  nation.  It  is  full  of 
ridiculous  anachronisms  ;  for  example,  Antiochus  Epiph- 
anes  and  Alexander  the  Great  are  confounded  to- 
gether, and  the  Romans  are  mentioned  in  a  writing 
ascribed  to  Solomon.  It  is  of  no  critical  or  exegetical 
value. 

2.  There  are  three  Targums  on  Esther.  The  first, 
short,  and  without  digressions,  is  printed  in  the  Antwerp 
Polyglot.  The  second  is  contained  in  the  London 
Polyglot.  It  is  prolix  and  rambling,  full  of  fables  and 
follies.  It  was  published  by  Tailer,  with  a  Latin  ver- 
sion, and  called  Targum  prius,  to  distinguish  it  from  the 
third  book,  called  Targum  posterius,  which  he  likewise 
published,  with  a  Latin  version.  A  fragment  of  another 
Targum  upon  Esther  is  cited  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot.'' 
Such  versions  as  these  "  are  to  the  critic  and  interpreter 

Zunz,  p.  64.     According  to  others,  it  came  from  the  same  author.     See 
Hdvernik,  p.  88. 

<>  Zunz,  p.  65.  '  Esth.  xi.  19, 13. 


^  62.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  237 

only  —  wind  and  clouds  without  rain."  There  is  also 
a  Chaldee  version  of  the  apocryphal  passages  of  Esther, 
published  in  the  Roman  edition"  of  a  version  of  Daniel 
by  the  Seventy. 

3.  The  Targum  on  the  Hagiographa  is  commonly 
ascribed  to  Joseph,  the  blind,  (or  the  one-eyed,)  who 
presided  over  the  academy  at  Sora,  in  Babylonia,  about 
322  A.  C.  But  writers  of  the  thirteenth  century  show 
it  was  not  his.*  But  it  is  evident,  from  the  unequal 
structure  of  this  version,  that  it  is  the  work  of  many 
hands.  The  Targum  on  the  Psalms  follows  a  Syriac 
original.  The  translation  of  each  book  has  its  own 
peculiar  character.  Thus,  in  Job,  two  versions  have 
been  united  together  in  many  places.  The  author, 
however,  had  a  pure  text  before  him,  which  rarely  dif- 
fered from  the  masoretic.  The  Targum  on  the  Proverbs 
is  closely  related  to  the  Syriac  version ; "  the  Psalms 
were  translated  by  different  writers ;  sometimes  the 
text  is  carefully  translated,  but  sometimes  it  is  para- 
phrased at  great  length.     It  is  full  of  Talmudic  stories."* 

It  is,  perhaps,  the  youngest  of  all  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrases ;  for  it  bears  marks  of  the  use  of  Pseudo-Jona- 
than and  the  Targum  of  Jerusalem.  It  has  the  faults 
of  most  of  the  other  Targums.] 


"  [1772,  republished  with  title  Specimen  variarum  Lectionum  sac.  Textua 
et  Chaldaicse  Estheris ;  Tubing.  1783,  8vo.] 

*  Zunz,  p.  65. 

"  [See  the  first  five  verses  of  ch.  i.  compared  with  the  Syriac  version,  in 
Eichhom,  §  239.] 

^  [See  some  of  these  stories  translated  by  Prof.  Stuart,  in  the  N.  A.  Re- 
view, for  April,  1838,  p.  515,  sqq.  Some  of  them  parallel  the  wonderful 
tales  in  the  Arabian  Nights'  Entertainment.] 


238  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^  63. 

^63. 

II.    THE   SAMARITAN    VERSION  OF  THE   PENTATEUCH.'* 

There  is  a  version  of  the  Pentateuch  extant  in  the 
Samaritan  language.  It  was  made  from  the  Samaritan 
recension  of  the  text ;  but  its  author  and  age  are  both 
unknown.  [The  Samaritan  account  states,  that  it  is  not 
clear  whether  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  one  Nathaniel,  or 
whether  it  was  given  the  Samaritans  by  God.  There 
was  a  pontiff,  by  name  Nathaniel,  a  little  before  Christ, 
who  possessed  great  authority  among  the  Samaritans. 
Gesenius  thinks  it  possible  he  was  the  author.] ''  Wal- 
ton places  its  date  too  high.*"  It  is  older  than  the 
Greek  Samaritan  version,  for  that  was  made  from  it. 
This  is  cited  by  the  Fathers  of  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries. 

With  some  exceptions,  it  follows  the  text  with  suffi- 
cient accuracy.  The  author,  however,  uses  great  free- 
dom in  regard  to  the  words  Jehovah  (mn-')  and  Elohim, 
(t3^■^V5^;)  fQY  example,  in  Gen.  v.  24.  xvii.  22.  xviii.  33. 
Num.  xxiii.  4,  5.  [These  words  are  often  exchanged 
for  "  Angel  of  God."  Thus,  in  Gen.  iii.  5,  it  is  said, 
"You  shall  be  like  the  angels,''^  where  G0J5 ( ti^'^^^ )  occurs 
in  the  original.  Man  is  made  in  the  likeness  of  the 
angels,  and  Enoch  is  carried  to  the  angels.~\     He  treats. 


"  [It  is  to  be  remembered,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Samari- 
tan version  are  not  the  same.  The  former  is  simply  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch 
in  Samaritan  letters.  It  differs  but  little  from  the  Hebrew  text  But  the 
latter  is  a  translation  into  the  Samaritan  dialect.     See  §  86,  infra.] 

*  See  De  Saaj,  On  the  Present  State  of  the  Samaritans,  in  Tzschirrier's 
Archiv.  vol.  i.  pt.  3.  Gesenius,  Com.  de  Pent.  Sam.  p.  18,  note  G6.  Winer, 
De  Versionis  Sam.  Indole  ;  Lips.  I8I7,  8vo. 

'  Prol.  xi.  20. 


? 


^63.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  239 

also,  with  great  freedom  all  passages  which  ascribe  hu- 
man passions  to  God." 

It  agrees  with  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  and  from  this 
circumstance  it  has  been  erroneously  concluded  the 
author  made  use  of  that  Targum.  But  it  differs  from 
the  latter  in  important  passages,  and  is,  besides,  more 
literal.  The  agreement  may  be  explained  from  the 
affinity  of  the  two  languages,  and  on  the  supposition 
that  both  followed  the  traditional  exegesis.''  In  the 
manuscripts  still  unprinted,  it  seems,  this  version  was 
sometimes  interpolated  from  the  work  of  Onkelos.''  Be- 
sides, the  double  readings  and  variations  of  the  manu- 
scripts prove  that  interpolations  have  been  made.'^ 

[On  the  whole,  the  version  is  of  little  value,  on  ac- 
count of  the  present  imperfection  of  our  knowledge  of 
the  Samaritan  language.  It  bears  marks  of  several 
hands,  and  of  several  recensions.  It  must  make  one  evi- 
dence with  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  and  can  furnish 
new  readings  only  where  it  differs  designedly  from  the 
latter.]' 


"  On  its  critical  value,  see  Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  19,  and  Winer,  1.  c.  p.  18. 

*   Winer,  1.  c.  p.  64. 

"  Blanchini's  Specimens  of  the  Barberine  Triglot  in  Evang.  quadruplex, 
pt  i.,  in  the  table  after  p.  dciv.  Compare  Adler,  Bib.  krit.  Reise,  p.  138. 
Eichhorn,  §  304,  325. 

'^  Morinus,  Opusc.  Heb.  Sam.  p.  99.  Castell,  Animadvers.  Sam.  in  totum 
Pent,  in  the  London  Polyglot,  vol.  vi.     Eichhorn,  §  305.     [Lee,  1.  c.  Prol.  ii.] 

"  Eichhorn,  1.  c. 

Editions.  —  It  is  contained  in  the  Paris  and  London  Polyglots,  ac- 
companied with  Morinus's  defective  translation,  though  it  is  somewhat 
amended  in  the  latter.  [This  version  is  still  not  trustworthy,  for  attempts 
have  been  made  to  make  it  accord  with  the  Vulgate.]  The  first  eighteen 
chapters  of  Genesis,  in  this  version,  were  published  at  Haleb,  1750,  4to. 
Some  passages  are  published  in  Ch.  Cellarius,  Horse  Samarit,  i.  e.  Excerpta, 
Pentateucho  Samaritanae  Versionis;  Ciz.  1782,  4to.  See  Carpzov,  Crit 
sac.  p.  617. 


240  DIRECT    ORIEiNTAL    VERSIONS.  [§  64. 

^64. 

III.    THE   SYRIAC   PESHITO. 

The  version  called  Peshito  —  that  is,  the  simple,  true 
—  seems  to  be  one  of  the  oldest  translations  of  the 
Bible." 

[The  history  of  the  Peshito,  among  the  Syrians,  is 
lost  in  wretched  fables  —  the  surest  proof  that  all  au- 
thentic accounts  of  its  origin  are  wanting.  Some  refer 
it  to  the  age  of  Solomon,  and  say  it  was  made  at  the 
request  and  i'or  the  use  of  Hiram.  And  to  give  a  show 
of  probability  to  this  story,  they  add  that  only  the  five 
books  of  Moses,  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Samuel,  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  Job, 
were  translated  at  that  time,  and  that  the  rest  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  rendered  into  Syriac,  shortly  after 
the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era,  at  the  instance 
of  the  apostle  Thaddeus.  But,  unluckily,  the  framers 
of  this  theory  forgot  to  tell  us  why  a  Phoenician,  who 
spoke  Hebrew,  needed  a  Syriac  version  of  a  Hebrew 
book,  —  and  to  account  for  the  existence  of  Greek 
words  in  the  Syriac  language  at  so  early  a  date. 

Others  maintain  that  Asa  caused  this  version  to  be 
made,  when  he  first  came  among  the  Samaritans.     But 

Bertholdt,  p.  593,  thinks  the  word  Peshito  ( Jtts'^'bs )  means  extended,  in 
common  use.  But  Gesenius,  Com.  in  Jes.  vol.  i.  p.  81,  has  shown  the  incor- 
rectness of  this  opinion.  See  the  tradition  of  James  of  Edessa,  respecting 
this  version,  in  BarhebrcEus,  ad  Ps.  x.,  and  Wiseman,  Hor.  Syr.  p.  103,  sq.  H&- 
vernik,  p.  92.  Ahulfarag,  Hist.  Dynast,  p.  101.  Gahr.  Sionita,  Prsef.  in 
Psalt  Syr.  in  Hottinger,  Thes.  phil.  p.  262.  See  BertholdVs  arguments  for 
its  origin  in  tlie  second  century,  p.  594.  Ephraim  the  Syrian,  who  died 
378,  is  the  oldest  witness.  See  Von  Lengerke,  Com.  crit.  de  Ephr.  Syr.  p. 
10,  sqq.  Wiseman,  1.  c.  p.  107 ;  some  expressions  seem  obscure  to  him.  Von 
Lengerke,  De  Eph.  Syr.  Arte  hermeneut  p.  25. 


§  64.]         DIRECT  ORIENTAL  VERSIONS.  24-1 

they  never  spoke  the  pure  Sjriac  language,  and  only 
considered  the  Pentateuch  and  the  false  book  of  Joshua 
as  canonical. 

Some  think  this  version  was  made  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  and  rely  upon  the  Syrian  tradition,  and  some 
passages  in  the  New  Testament."  Some  of  the  Syrians, 
and  some  modern  critics,  ascribe  this  version  to  the 
pretended  apostle  Addeus,  or  Thaddeus ;  others  refer 
it  to  his  time,  without  giving  him  any  share  in  the  ver- 
sion. There  are  some  considerations  which  render  the 
supposition  probable.  The  Syrians  state  it  as  a  fact ;  a 
version  of  the  Old  Testament  was  needed  as  soon  as 
Christianity  was  proclaimed  among  them,  and  it  is 
often  cited  by  the  Fathers.  But  the  Syrians  refer  so 
many  things  to  Addeus,  that  their  testimony  deserves 
little  attention  ;  the  Greek  language  was  well  under- 
stood in  most  of  the  Syrian  cities,  and  the  demands  of 
the  new  Christians  would  be  answered  by  the  Septua- 
gint ;  and,  finally,  it  is  not  cited  by  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Fathers  before  the  fifth  century. 

The  age  of  this  version,  then,  cannot  be  determined 
with  accuracy.  We  find  no  trace  of  it  before  the  mid- 
dle of  the  fourth  century,  when  Ephraim  Syrus  com- 
mented upon  it.  "  Before  his  time,  it  may  have  been 
long  in  existence.  But  how  long  ?  a  half,  or  a  whole 
century  ?  or  still  longer  ?  Who  will  venture  to  deter- 
mine this,  in  the  silence  of  authentic  history  ?  Most 
voices  place  it  in  the  second  century.     But  if  it  is  com- 

"  [Eph.  iv.  8,  Paul  cites  Ps.  Ixviii.  19,  as  saying,  sdcoxe  do/^ara  tolg  6.v~ 
dgtonoig,  which  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  text,  (where  he  is  made  to  receive 
gifts,)  but  agrees  with  the  Syriac  reading,  "  and  hast  sent  gifts."  But  this 
similarity  is  easily  explained  on  a  different  hypothesis  ;  and  Walton  justly 
calls  the  explanation  some  writers  have  made  of  this  agreement  between  the 
apostle  and  the  Syriac,  a  most  foolish  comment  —  vanissimum  coramentum.] 
VOL.    I.  31 


242  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^64. 

posed  of  the  labors  of  several  translators,  we  can  only 
place  the  beginning  of  its  gradual  formation  in  that  age."" 

It  is  still  a  matter  of  controversy  to  decide  to  what 
nation,  or  to  what  religion,  its  author  belonged.  Simon 
thinks  he  was  a  Jew.  Dathe  calls  him  a  Jewish  Chris- 
tian. According  to  Kirsch  and  Michaelis,  he  was  a 
Christian.  Eichhorn  thinks  all  these  theories  might 
be  united  by  supposing  it  made  by  a  Jew,  born  in 
Syria,  and  converted  to  Christianity,  if  it  were  probably 
the  work  of  one  man.  Gesenius  and  Hirzel  produce 
satisfactory  arguments  for  believing  its  author  was  a 
Christian.*  Eichhorn  and  Bertholdt  think  there  were 
several  authors. 

Its  internal  structure  is  a  proof  that  it  has  been  com- 
piled from  the  labors  of  several  Syriac  translators.  Ec- 
clesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  proceeded  from  a 
man  who  was  very  familiar  with  the  Chaldee  dialect. 

The  translator  of  the  Psalms  was  evidently  a 

Christian ;  for  he  explains  Ps.  Iv.  14  as  relating  to  the 
Lord's  supper.  The  tone  of  the  translation  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch diifers  from  that  of  the  books  of  Chronicles. 
For  the  most  part,  the  style  is  pure  Syriac,  like  that  of 
Ephraim  Syrus  ;  but  some  portions  are  full  of  barbarisms 
—  a  plain  proof  that  our  printed  Peshito  has  grown  out 
of  the  contributions  of  several  translators.]  " 

"  [Eichhorn,  §  248.] 

'  According  to  R.  Simon,  (Hist.  crit.  du  V.  T.  p.  274,)  the  author  was  a 
Jew;  according  to  Dathe,  (Prpef.  in  Psalt.  Syr.  p.  xxiii.,  sqq.,)  a  Jewish 
Christian  ;  according  to  Kirsch,  (Prsef.  in  Pent.  p.  6,)  and  Michaelis,  ( Abhand- 
lung  von  der  Syr.  Sprache,  p.  59,)  a  Christian.  See  satisfactory  grounds  in 
favor  of  a  Christian  author  in  Gesenitis,  1.  c.  p.  85,  and  Hirzel,  De  Pent.  Vers. 
Syr.  quain  vocant  Peschito,  Indole ;  Lips.  1825, 8vo.  p.  127,  sqq. 

'  Eichhorn,  §  250,  sqq.  See,  also,  Bertholdt,  p.  596.  Ephraim  Syrus,  ad 
Jos.  XV.  28,  seems  to  suppose  there  were  several  authors.  See  Hdvemik, 
1.  c.  p.  94,  sqq. 


§64.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL  VERSIONS.  243 

It  extends  over  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. The  Syriac  version  of  the  Apocrypha  does  not 
belong  to  this  version."  It  vi^as  made  from  the  Hebrew 
text,*  to  which  it  adheres  closely,  and  for  the  most  part 
successfully,  and  answers  to  the  character  of  a  faithful 
version  far  better  than  the  Chaldee.  It  sometimes 
allows  itself  arbitrary  interpretations,  but  never  intro- 
duces any  thing  foreign  into  the  text.*"  [It  makes 
mistakes  which  are  possible  only  on  the  supposition  of 
a  direct  use  of  the  original ;  sometimes  it  agrees  with 
one  ancient  version,  and  sometimes  with  another.  In 
the  main,  it  follows  correct  principles  of  translation,  and 
sometimes  contains  excellent  explanations,  which  are 
too  little  regarded  by  our  interpreters.  The  incapacity 
of  the  Syriac  language  for  poetry,  constrained  the  trans- 
lator to  strip  the  Hebrew  bards  of  their  poetic  garment, 
and  to  render  their  sublimest  language  into  dull  prose. 
Finally,  the  close  affinity  between  the  Syriac  and  He- 
brew dialects  aided  them  much  in  their  labor ;  it  offered 
them  the  best  explanations  of  difficult  Hebrew  words, 
and  often  permitted  them  to  adhere  to  the  very  expres- 
sions of  the  original.'' 

"  All  the  Syrian  churches  made  use  of  the  Peshito  as 

"  Ephraim  Syrus  had  not  the  apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel  in  his  copy. 
Yet  he  Avas  acquainted  with  the  Apocryplia.  See  Lengerke,  Daniel,  p. 
cxii.,  and  De  Ephraim.  Syr.  Arte  hermeneut  p.  8. 

*  Ephraim  Syrus,  on  Jos.  xv.  28.  BarhebrcBus,  in  Asseman,  1.  c.  vol.  ii. 
p.  274.  Hist  Dynast,  p.  100.  See  his  unfavorable  judgment  of  this  m  Prsef. 
Horrei  Mysteriorum,  and  in  Liber  Splendornm,  in  Asseman,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p. 
279,  281.  Carpzov,  1.  c.  p.  625.  Semler  thinks  tliis  version  was  made  from 
the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Hexapla,  with  the  assistance  of  the  versions  in  the 
adjoining  columns.  Vorbereit  zur  Theol.  Hermeneutic,  vol.  i.  p.  382.  See 
Dctthe,  1.  c.  p.  8,  sqq,     Eichhorn,  §  249,  sqq. 

"  Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  81,  sqq.  Hirzel,  1.  c.  p.  51,  sqq.  Credner,  De  Proph. 
minor.  Vers.  Syr.  quam  Peschito  vocant  Indole  ;  Gott  1825,  p.  82,  sqq. 

^  Eichhorn,  §Q53. 


244  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^  64. 

a  church  version.  Only  the  Western  Syrians  regarded 
the  Septuagint,  also,  as  of  public  authority.  But  it  was 
not  prized  very  highly  by  all  members  of  the  Syriac 
church,  for  Gregory  speaks  very  unfavorably  of  it, 
though  merely  on  account  of  his  exaggerated  esteem  for 
the  Alexandrian  version,  for  historical  criticism  had  not 
then  separated  the  history  of  the  origin  of  that  from  the 
well-knovi^n  fables  connected  with  it,  and  superstitious 
regard  for  its  inspiration  found  support  in  the  circum- 
stance that  the  New  Testament  made  such  frequent 
use  of  it.]  " 

It  often  inclines  strongly  towards  the  Alexandrian  ver- 
sion. This  conformity  seems  in  many  cases  —  though 
not  so  often  as  it  is  sometimes  pretended  —  to  arise  from 
interpolations.''  It  is  also  sometimes  dependent  on  the 
Chaldee  paraphrase,  especially  in  the  Prophets." 

"  [See  Eichhorn,  §  251.     Asseman,  1.  c.  p.  279,  sqq.] 

*  R.  Simon,  1.  c.  p.  272.  Stark,  Dav.  Carm.  vol.  i.  p.  209.  Eichkorn,  §  254. 
Hirzel,  p.  100,  sqq.  Credner  (p.  107)  and  Gesenius  think  the  LXX.  was 
used. 

For  tlie  criticism  of  this  version,  see  Collatio  Vers.  Syr.  quam  Peschito 
vocant,  cum  Fragmentis  in  Com.  Ephraimi  sancti  obviis,  instituta  a  G.  L. 
Spohn,  Spec.  i.  ii. ;  Lips.  1785 — 1794,  4to.  Compare  the  Syriac  ecclesias- 
tical version  of  Amos,  in  the  London  Polyglot,  with  Ephraim's  Syriac  text  in 
fVaJWs  Magazin  fiir  morg.  und  bib.  Lit.  vol.  ii.  p.  78,  sqq.  Compare  the 
Peshito  text  of  Job  i. — x.  in  the  Polyglot,  with  the  same  chapters  in  Ephra- 
im's Commentary.  Compare  TFahl,  vol.  iii.  p.  1 — 7.  Credner,  I.  c.  p.  65. 
Cces.  a  Lengerke,  Com.  crit.  de  Ephraimo  Syr.  ch.  ii. 

"   Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  83.     Credner,  1.  c.  p.  96. 

Editions.  —  In  the  Paris  Polyglot,  by  G.  Gahnel.  Sionita,  improved,  (?) 
and  enlarged  in  the  London  Polyglot.  Vet.  Test.  Syriace,  eos  tantum  libros 
sistens,  qui  in  canone  Hebr.  habentur,  ordine  vero,  quoad  fieri  potuit,  apud 
Syros  usitato  dispositos.  In  usum  ecclesiae  Syrorum  Malabar,  jussu  Soc. 
bibl.  recognovit  et  ad  fidem  codd.  MSS.  emendavit  S.  Lee ;  Lond.  1823,  gr. 
4to.  Pentateuchus  Syr.  ed.  G.  C.  Kirsch ;  Lips.  1787,  4to.  The  Psalms , 
Libanon,  1585,  fol.,  and  1610.  Psalmi  Dav.  Ed.  a  TJiom.  Erpenio  ;  Lug. 
Hat  1625,  4to.  Notas  philol.  et  crit.  addidit  F.  A.  Bathe  ;  Halle,  1768,  8vo. 
Liber  Psalrnorum.  Ex  Idiomate  Syro  in  Lat.  transl.  a  G,  Sionita;  Par. 
1625, 4to. 


§  64.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  245 

["  Notwithstanding  the  accuracy  with  which  the 
Peshito  follows  the  Hebrew,  the  Greek  version  of"  the 
Seventy,"  says  EichhoVn,  "  sometimes  gleams  strongly 
through  the  text.  From  this  phenomenon,  some  have 
drawn  the  conclusion  that  this  version  has  been  re- 
touched after  the  Seventy,  and  history  favors  the  con- 
jecture  .*If  the  Peshito  contains  readings,  and  whole 

passages,  of  which  no  trace  can  be  found  in  the  original ; 
or  if  the  versions  from  the  Syriac  incline  to  the  Hebrew, 
while  itself  inclines  to  the  Greek  ;  or  if  one  manuscript 
of  the  Peshito  approaches  nearer  to  the  Hebrew,  while 
another  follows  the  Greek  ;  —  in  such  cases,  must  not 
criticism  suspect  there  have  been  later  alterations  made 
directly  from  the  Greek,  or  indirectly  from  the  Syriac 
descendants  of  the  Greek  ? 

"  If  the  Peshito  were  free  from  such  interpolations,  it 
would  be  an  unparalleled  anomaly  in  criticism.  From 
Ephraim  the  Syrian  to  Gregory  Barhebraeus,  this 
version  was  used  by  the  learned  writers  on  the  Old 
Testament,  among  the  Syrians,   in   common   with  the 

Septuagint The  Syrians  had  several  translations 

of  the  Alexandrian  version,  with  which  they  could  com- 
pare the  Peshito,  and  thus  these  several  versions  would 
very  naturally  be  corrupted  from  one  another. 

"  Still  further,  Gregory  says  expressly  in  his  commen- 
tary on  the  Old  Testament,"  that  he  has  altered  the  Pe- 
shito, several  times,  after  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  which 
is  far  better.  Jacob  of  Edessa,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
eighth  century,  and  Uionysius  Barsalibi,  in  the  middle 
of  the  twelfth,  revised  the  Peshito  in  the  same  manner.* 


"  [Horreum  Mysteriorum.] 

*  [Eichhorn  thinks,  however,  that  Jacob  of   Edessa  did  not  revise  the 
Peshito,  but  a  Greek-Sj/riac  version.] 


246  ARABIC    VERSIONS    FROxM    THE    SYRIAC.         [^  65. 

"  Yet  we  must  not  ascribe  every  agreement  of  the 
Peshito  with  the  Greek  to  a  later  recension  ;  for  the 
original  author,  as  a  Syrian,  may  have  had  some  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Septuagint,  and  sometimes  have 
followed  it."" 

Many  critics  consider  the  Peshito  as  one  of  the  most 
valuable  of  the  ancient  versions.  Kennicott  and  De 
Rossi  have  derived  valuable  readings  from  it.]* 


^65. 

IV.    DESCENDANTS   OF  THE   PESHITO. 
Arabic  Versions   from  the   Syriac. 

1.  Some  of  the  Arabic  versions  in  the  Paris  and  London 
Polyglots  have  been  made  from  the  Syriac ; '  not  merely 
the  version  of  Job  and  Chronicles,'^  but  that  also  of 
Judges,  Ruth,  and  Samuel,  of  1  Kings  i. — xi.,  of  2  Kings 
xii.  17 — XXV.,  and  Nehemiah  ix.  28 — xiii.,  have  pro- 
ceeded from  this  source."  According  to  Rodiger,  Judges, 
Ruth,  Samuel,  and  1  Kings  i. — xi.,  were  translated  by  a 
Christian  in  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century.  Dif- 
ferent, but  Christian  authors  translated  the  passages  2 
Kings  xiii.  1 7 — xxv.,  and  Nehemiah  ix.  28 — xiii.^  [Noth- 
ing is  known  of  the  age  or  author  of  the  books  of  Job  and 
Chronicles.    This  version  agrees  in  general  quite  closely 


«  [Eichhorn,  §  254,  255.] 

''  [See,  also,  Home,  pt.  i.  ch.  ii.  sect  iii.  §  3,  and  his  authorities.] 
'   Reprinted  by  the  Bible  Society  at  Newcastle,  1811,  in  great  4to. 
<>■  Eichhorn,  §  290. 

'  .^67/1.  Rodiger,  De  Origine  et  Indole  Arab,  Libr.  V.  T.  hist  Interpret ; 
Hal.  1829,  4to.  lib.  i.  ch.  ii. 

•'   Rodiger,  1.  c.  t^  6%  sqq.  ch.  iv.  §  73,  sqq.  ch.  v. 


^  65.^  ARABIC    VERSIONS    FROM    THE    SYRIAC.  247 

with  the  Syriac  origmal,  but  sometimes  follows  a  read- 
ing different  from  that  of  the  commo.i  printed  text.]  " 

2.  There  are  two  versions  of  the  Psalms  —  one,  that 
of  the  Syriac  edition  of  the  Psalms  printed  at  Mount 
Lebanon,  (^  64;)  the  other,  an  unprinted  Arabic  Psal- 
ter in  the  British  Museum.* 

[Under  the  direction  of  Sergius  Risius,  the  learned 
bishop  of  Damascus,  a  Psalter  in  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
languages  was  printed,  at  Kasheja,  in  the  valley  of 
Mount  Lebanon,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  for  the  use 
of  the  Syrian  Christians.  The  age  and  author  of  the 
version  are  unknown  ;  but  it  evidently  follows  the  Pe- 
shito  as  its  original.  Sometimes  it  differs  from  the 
Syriac,  in  minute  peculiarities,  and  even  in  important 
readings ;  but  this  only  shows  that  attempts  had  not 
been  made  to  reconcile  the  two,  before  this  was  printed. 
The  Arabic  sometimes  inclines  to  the  Greek. 

There  is  an  independent  Arabic  Psalter,  in  manu- 
script, in  the  British  Museum,  which  follows  the  Syriac, 
as  its  original.  Its  age  and  author  are  not  known.  It 
differs  entirely  from  that  printed  at  Lebanon,  in  th-r 
position  of  its  words,  and  in  the  explanation  of  difficult 
places.  It  appears  to  have  been  altered  after  the  He- 
brew text.  Perhaps  the  author  had,  also,  the  Hebrew 
original  before  him,  when  he  translated.] " 

3.  There  are  several  Arabic  versions  of  the  [Syriac] 
Pentateuch ;  but  some  of  them  have  not  been  printed, 
and  some  are  unknown.'^ 


"  [EichJiom,  §  290.] 

*  Doderlein,  On  the  Arabic  Psalters,  in  EicKhorri's  Repert.  vol.  ii.  p.  159, 
170,  sqq. 

'  [Eichlwm,  §09^,293.] 

^  Asseman,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  309.  Jlbidfarag,  Hist.  Dynast,  p.  355.  Schnur- 
rer,  De  Pentat.  Arab.  Polyglot,  in  his  JDissertatt.  p.  203.    Paultis,  Spec.  Vers. 


248  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [%  ^^ 

%  66. 

V.    ARABIC    VERSIONS. 

1.  From  the   Jewish— Hebrew  Text. 

1.  We  are  still  in  possession  of  a  translation  of  the 
Pentateuch,"  and  of  Isaiah,*   from   the   hand  of  Rabbi 

Pent.  Arab.  p.  36,  sqq.  [These  versions  are  little  known,  and  are  too  inac- 
curate for  critical  use.     See  Paulus,  Com.  crit.  exhibens Spec.  Vers. 

Pent  septem  Arabicaruni  nondum  editarum ;  Jen.  1784,  4to.  Eichhom, 
§  294,  b. 

See,  also,  Hoftinger,  Thes.  phil.  p.  270.  fValton,  Prol.  xiv.  19.  Grahe, 
Prol.  ad  LXX.  ch.  iii.  §  5.  White's  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  p.  56. 
Ken7iicott,  Diss.  Gen.  ed  Bnins,  §  84,  and  Eichhom,  §  294,  c.  for  the  Arabic 
translation  of  the  hcxaplary  Syriac  version,  by  Hareth  Ben  Senan.] 

"  This  has  been  printed  in  Pentat.  Heb.  Pers.  Arab. ;  Constant.  1516,  fol. 
See  f^olf,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  354.  Le  Long,  ed.  Masch,  vol.  i.  p.  393,  sqq.  Mler, 
Bibl.  krit.  Reise,  p.  221.  —  in  Paris  Polyglot,  vol.  vi.  —  in  London  Polyglot, 
vol.  i.  (with  the  various  readings  of  the  Constantinople  and  Paris  editions, 
vol.  vi.)  See  O.  G.  Tychsen,  in  Eichhorn's  Repert.  vol.  x.  p.  95,  on  the 
sources  whence  the  MSS.  of  the  Arabic  version  in  the  Polyglots  have  been 
derived.  See,  also,  his  essay.  Whether  R.  Saadias  Haggaon  is  the  author 
of  the  Arabic  version  in  the  Polyglots,  in  Eichhom,  1.  c.  vol.  xi.  p.  82.  He 
thinks  Abu  Said  is  the  author,  and  not  Saadias.  Hottinger  doubts  that  the 
versions  in  these  Polyglots  are  the  same.  See  his  Diss,  de  Heptaplis  Paris. ; 
Tig.  1649,  4to.  (Analect  Hist.  Theol.;  Tig.  1653,  8vo.)  Smegma  Orient; 
Heidelberg,  1659,  4to.  p.  93,  sqq.  Other  doubts  arose  from  misunderstanding 
the  preface  to  the  Paris  Polyglot  (See  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  ix.  p.  153, 
sqq.)  Schnurrer  removed  these  doubts,  by  republishing  that  preface.  See  his 
Diss,  de  Pent.  Arab.  Polyg.,  (Tub.  1780,  4to.,)  and  in  his  Dissertations. 

'■  R.  Saadiae  Phijumensis  Vers,  Jesaite  Arab,  cum  aliis  speciminibus 
Arab.  bibl.  e  MS.  Bodlej.  nunc  primum  ed.  atque  glossar.  perpet.  instruxit, 
H.  E.  G.  Paulm,  Fasc.  i.  ii. ;  Jense,  1790,  1791,  8vo.  See  Eichhom,  Allg. 
Bib.  vol.  iii.  p.  19,  sqq.,  456,  sqq. 

There  are  traces  of  an  Arabic  version  of  Job  and  Hosea,  by  Saadias.  See 
Eichhom,  on  the  extent  of  Saadias's  Arabic  version,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  181,  sqq. 
Gesenius  found  his  version  of  Job  at  Oxford,  and  copied  it  See  his  preface 
to  Isaiah,  p.  x. 

[Traces  of  Saadias's  version  of  Job,  says  Eichhom,  may  be  found  in  Cod. 
40,  of  the  Arabic  MSS.  in  the  Bodleyan  Library.  The  preface  begins  as 
follows :  Hsec  interpretatio  est  liber  directionis  derivatus  ex  Jobo  juxta  in- 
terpretationem  preefecti  synagogse  ac  magistri  Saadia?.     Kimchi  cites  him  on 


§66.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIOMS.  249 

Saadias  Gaon,  who  died  A.  C.  942."  These  versions 
are  executed  in  an  explanatory,  paraphrastic  style,  har- 
monizing with  the  explanations  of  the  Targums  and  the 
rabbins.*  They  are  a  fine  monument  of  the  rabbinical 
philology  and  knowledge  of  the  Bible  in  the  tenth 
century, 

[According  to  Wolf,  Rabbi  Saadias  was  a  native  of 
Pithom  —  whence  he  is  often  called  Pithumensis  —  a 
city  in  the  Egyptian  province  of  Fagum.  He  enjoyed 
such  a  reputation  for  his  learning,  that,  in  the  year  927, 
gie  was  invited  to  take  charge  of  the  academy  at  Baby- 
lon, then  in  a  declining  state.  But,  two  years  after, 
he  was  obliged  to  flee  for  his  life.  He  lived  in  conceal- 
ment the  next  seven  years,  and  wrote  various  works. 
Perhaps  the  Arabic  versions  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
Isaiah  were  composed  at  this  time."      • 

Eichhorn  thinks  there  were  Arabic  versions  before  the 
seventh  century,  though  the  first  version  which  is  known 
to  us  belongs  to  the  tenth.  Erpenius  and  Pococke 
think  Saadias  translated  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. But  they  ground  their  belief  on  the  fact  that 
there  are  manuscripts  containing  the  whole  of  an  Arabic 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  part  of  which,  certainly, 
proceeded  from  Saadias. 

His  version  is  made  directly  from  the  Hebrew ;   but 

Hosea  vi.  9.  Eichhorn,  §  282.  This  MS.  is  written  in  Hebrew  characters. 
Erpen  was  so  confident  Saadias  translated  the  whole  Old  Testament,  that  he 
promised  to  publish  the  entire  version.     See  Walton,  Prol.  xiv.  1.5.] 

"  See  accounts  of  this  famous  Jewish  scholar  in  fFolf,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  832, 
sqq.     Gesenius,  Heb.  Sprache,  p.  96. 

*  See  more  respecting  the  critical  and  exegetical  value  of  this  version  in 
Carpzov,  Crit  sac.  p.  646,  sqq.  Gesenius,  Com.  iib.  Jes.  vol.  i.  p.  90,  sqq. 
On  the  affinity  between  the  Paris  and  London  impressions  of  the  version  of 
the  Pentateuch,  see  Eichhorn,  §  281,  sq.,  and  AcUer,  L  c.  p.  149. 

"  [  Wolf,  1.  c,  who  gives  a  list  of  his  works.] 

VOL.  I.  32 


250  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^66. 

it  dilutes  and  expands  the  original  till  all  its  poetic 
beauties  are  lost.  But  many  of  the  paraphrastic  pas- 
sages, perhaps,  could  not  have  come  from  Saadias,  and 
we  can  never  be  sure  we  possess  the  version  in  the 
original  form  which  proceeded  from  his  hand.  The 
transcribers  have  used  great  freedom  with  this,  as  with 
all  the  Arabic  versions ;  and  some  manuscripts  may  ap- 
proach nearer  to  the  Hebrew  text,"  where  the  printed 
copy  is  paraphrastic.  Like  other  versions,  it  has  been 
interpolated  in  the  course  of  time.  Some  of  the  man- 
uscripts have  been  altered  systematically,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  errors  which  carelessness  has  introduced. 
Even  between  the  two  printed  copies  of  Saadias  there 
are  many  discrepancies.*  Wherever  God  appears  or 
acts,  according  to  the  edition  of  Constantinople,  an  an- 
gel of  God  appeais  or  acts,  according  to  the  text  of  the 
Polyglots." 

It  has  likewise  been  altered  from  the  Arabic  version 
of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  It  is  a  characteristic  of 
the  Samaritan  version  to  render  the  word  God  by  angel 
of  God  in  certain  connections,  and  this  peculiarity  often 
occurs  in  the  Paris  impression,  which  renders  it  proba- 
ble that  these  passages  have  been  altered  by  a  later 
interpolator,  and  made  to  conform  to  the  Samaritan. 
There  is,  besides,  that  general  agreement  between  the 
two  manuscripts  of  Saadias  and  the  fragments  of  the 
Samaritan-Arabic    version,  which  is  usually  found   be- 

"  [See  a  comparison  of  a  small  portion  of  the  text  of  the  Polyglots,  with 
that  of  the  Florentine  and  Roman  MSS.,  in  Eichhorv,  §  280,  and  in  Mler, 
Bib.  krit  Reise,  p.  175.    The  Florentine  MS.  follows  the  Heb.  very  closely.] 

^  [E.  g.  Deut  xxxiv.  10 :  "  Novit  eum  Deus  presentem,"  in  the  Polyglots ; 
but  in  the  Constantinople  edition  it  is  "  quem  Deus  allocutus  est  sine  medio," 
(immediate.)  So,  in  Gen.  xviii.  13,  in  the  former  it  is,  "  and  the  prophet  of 
God  said  to  Abraham ; "  but  in  the  latter,  "  and  God  said  to  Abraham."] 

'  [EichJiorn,  §281.] 


^66.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  251 

tvveen  interpolated  manuscripts.  The  text  of  the  Paris 
and  London  Polyglots  has  been  altered  more  than  that 
of  Constantinople,  which,  however,  has  not  escaped  un- 
touched." 

Only  a  single  manuscript  is  known  of  Saadias's  ver- 
sion of  Isaiah ;  the  subscription  refers  it  to  him,  and  the 
style  agrees  very  closely  with  that  of  his  version  of  the 
Pentateuch ;  so  that  no  one  can  doubt  that  both  pro- 
ceeded from  the  same  hand.  Its  value  is  inconsiderable  ; 
but  it  is  always  agreeable  to  know  how  one  of  the  best 
Jewish  scholars  of  the  tenth  century  understood  Isaiah. 
Here  and  there  his  version  seems  to  have  something 
peculiar  to  itself.]* 

2.  There  is  a  version  of  Joshua  and  the  following 
passages,  namely:  1  Kings  xiii. — 2  Kings  xii.  16,  and 
Neh.  i. — ix.  27,  which  is  printed  in  the  Polyglots." 

3.  There  is  also  a  version  of  the  Pentateuch,  made  in 
the  thirteenth  century  by  an  African  Jew.  It  has  been 
edited  by  Erpen.'^  [In  general,  this  version  follows  the 
masoretic  text  step  by  step,  and  a  real  variant  is  an 
extremely  rare  phenomenon  in  it.  But  if  the  author 
had  an  ancient  Hebrew  text  before  him,  his  version 
would  be  valuable  in  criticism  to  show  what  readings  he 
followed  ;  for  he  usually  applies  himself  so  closely  to  the 
letters  that  Erpen  thought  a  Latin  version  was  indis- 
pensable to  his  edition.  To  favor  this  literalness,  the 
translator  indulges  in  expressions  that  are  foreign  to  the 

"  [Eichhom,  §  282.] 

''  [Eichhorn,  §  283,  b.  See,  also.  Notice  sur  Rabbi  Saadias  Gaon  et  sa 
Version  Arabe  d'Isaie,  et  sur  line  Version  Persane  MS.  de  la  Bibliotheque 
royale,  suivie  d'une  Extrait  du  Livre  Dalalat  Al  Hazerin,  en  Arabe  et  en 
Fran^ais.  &c.,  par  Salomon  Munk ;  Paris,  1838.  See,  also,  Berlin  Jahr- 
blicher,  for  April,  1840,  p.  633,  sqq.] 

"  Rodiger,  1.  c.  lib.  i.  ch,  iii. 

"^  Pentateuchus  Mosis,  Arabice ;  Lug.  Bat.  1622,  small  4to. 


252  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^  67. 

Arabic  usage,  and  which  would   be  obscure  to  any  one 
who  did  not  compare  them  with  the  original.] " 

4.  There  is  also  an  Arabic  version  made  directly  from 
the  Hebrew,  by  Rabbi  Saadias  Ben  Levi  Ashkenoth, 
[of  Morocco,  a  learned  Jew  of  the  first  part  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.]  It  exists  in  manuscript  in  the  British 
Museum,  and  contains  only  Genesis,  Psalms,  and  Daniel.'' 
[Judging  from  the  printed  extracts,  it  does  not  follow 
any  of  the  printed  Arabic  versions.  But  it  is  too  mod- 
ern to  furnish  us  with  more  than  a  stiff  translation  of 
the  masoretic  text,  made  by  the  help  of  a  rabbinical 
lexicon.     It  is  of  less  value  than  Erpen's  edition.] ' 

§67. 

2.     The  Samaritan-Arabic  Version  of  Abu-Said. 

To  take  the  place  of  Saadias's  version,  which  was  used 
by  the  Samaritans  after  the  extinction  of  their  language, 
Abu-Said,  a  Samaritan,''  made  an  Arabic  version  of  the 

"  [Eichhorn,  §  284.] 

*  See  Diiderlein,  in  Eichhorri's  Repert  vol.  iii.  p.  153,  sqq.,  and  Specimens 
of  an  imprinted  Arabic  Version  of  the  Psalms,  in  the  Bodleyan  Library^  by 
Sclmmrer,  in  Eichhorri's  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  iii.  p.  425,  sqq.,  and  an  article  by 
Rink,  on  tlie  Arabic  Version  of  Genesis,  in  the  Manheim  Library. 

"  Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  666.  [The  MS.  contains  an  interlineary  version  in  the 
Malay  language.] 

''■  See  tlie  translator's  preface,  in  Cod.  Paris,  No.  4,  and  the  imperfect 
translation  of  it  in  Le  Long,  1.  c.  p.  117,  ed.  Paris,  1723.  [The  following  is 
De  Sacifs  more  correct  translation,  taken  from  Eichhorn^s  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  x. 
p.  5,  sqq.     (See,  also,  vol.  iii.  art.  i.  for  the  Arabic  text.) 

Qui  veritatem  sequitur,  in  viam  rectara  dirigitur,  haec  ait  servus,  miseri- 
cordiae  Dei  indigens,  Abusaidus,  filius  Abulhossaini,  nepos  vero  Abusaidi 
(cujus  finem  ultimum  faustum  efRciat  Deus.)  Cum  vidissem  versionem  libri 
hujus  venerandi,  quiE  manibus  nostrorum  sodalium  teritur,  (quorum  numerum 
augeat  Deus,  quosque  beneficiis,  prosequi  dignetur,)  corruptam  esse  quoad 
literas  et  sensum  ideo,  quod  lingutE  Arabicse  sunt  rudes  omnino :  dicenti- 
bus  tamen  quibusdam  ex  eis,  istam  versionem  a  nobilissimo  doctore  elabora- 


^67.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  253 

Samaritan  Pentateuch  .in  the  eleventh  or  tvi^elfth  cen- 
tury." 

["It  is  unknown  in  what  age  Abu-Said  lived  and  com- 
posed his  version  ;  but  it  must  have  been  between  the 
middle  of  the  tenth  and  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth 
centuries.  It  can  be  shown,  by  many  arguments,  that  it 
is  a  direct  descendant  of  the  Hebrew-Samaritan  text, 
and  does  not  recognize  the  Samaritan  version  as  its 
original ;  for  the  learned  Samaritans  both  understand 
and  write  the  Hebrew,  at  this  time and  He- 
brew and  Samaritan  are  so  closely  related,  that  there 
can  be  no  reason  devised,  why,  at  the  time  of  the 
composition  of  this  version,  it  should  have  been  easier 
for  the  Samaritans  to  make  an  Arabic  translation  from 
the  Samaritan  version,  than  from  the  Hebrew  original. 
The  doubts  not  removed  by  this  argument  will  be  de- 
stroyed by  the  internal  character  of  the  version.  It  pre- 
serves the  Hebrew  words,  as  often  as  possible,  in  the 
Arabic,  and  departs  from  the  Samaritan  version.'"' 

Eichhorn  thinks  the  translator  was  a  Samaritan,  be- 


tam  esse  Abulhassano  lyrio,  (cujus  misereatur  Deus,)  quamvis  hujus  viri 
non  sit  profecto,  nee  fieri  possit,  ut  ipse  hanc  versionem  concinnaverit  peculi- 
ariter  hujus  loci  interpretationem,  n^a^^yy^  ^Iffi^  "ri^>i3 »  etc.  quae  est  im- 
pietas  evidentissima  at  alia  plura  huic  non  dissirnilia  et  cum  revera  haec 
versio  facta  sit  a  Tajumensi  doctore  e  Judseis,  (quern  Deus  debitis  tormentis 
excruciet,)  operas  pretium  fore  mihi  visum  est,  si  hocce  exemplar  trans- 
ferendum  suscepissem  :  ilia  quoque  exemplaria,  quae  jam  praecesserunt,  et 
quae  postea,  si  per  Deura  licuerit,  scripturus  sum,  interpretatione  fideli  et 
concinna,  ut  ex  ea  describantur  alia  exemplaria,  quorum  ope  tollantur  erro- 
res,  in  quos  incidit  Tajumensis,  et  qui  ejus  interpretationem  probarunt,  et  ut 
sit  mihi  monumentum  bonum  apud  Deum  O.  M.  et  apud  omnes  quicum- 
que  ex  populo  Dei  veritati  obsequuntur,  si  Deo  placuerit]  See  Paulus, 
1.  c.  p.  33,  and  his  Contributions  to  the  History  of  the  Sam.  Pentat.,  in  his 
Neue  Report  vol.  iii.  p.  176,  and  Schnurrer  on  the  same  subject,  in  Allg. 
Bib.  vol.  iii.  p.  814. 

"  See  De  Sacy,  De  Vers.  Sam.  Arab.  Libr.  Nos.  in  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  x.  p. 
16 — 40.     Saadias  is  the  most  certain  termimis  a  quo. 

"  [Eichhorn,  ^  ^87.] 


254  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^  67. 

cause  he  uses  "angel  of  God,"  for."  Jehovah,"  and  always 
adheres  to  the  Hebrew-Samaritan  text,  where  it  differs 
from  the  Hebrew-Jewish.  He  sometimes  agrees  so 
closely  with  Saadias,  that  some  critics  conjecture  that 
he  was  very  familiar  with  his  version,  and  copied  it  with- 
out design,  or  consulted  it,  in  different  places.] " 

He  translated  with  literal  fidelity,  by  the  aid  of  the 
Samaritan  version  and  that  of  Saadias,  and  with  some 
inclination  towards  the  Jewish  text.' 

["  The  version  expresses  the  words  of  the  original 
text  very  accurately,  and  adheres  so  closely  to  the  letters, 
that  it  answers  to  the  Samaritan  text  and  version,  word 
for  word,  line  for  line,  and  period  for  period.  It  follows 
the  order  of  the  Hebrew  words  carefully ;  it  adopts 
many  Hebrew  idioms,  and  very  often  retains  the  original 
word,  without  translating  it Sometimes  it  for- 
sakes this  character."  In  particular,  it  attempts  to 
soften  expressions  which  speak  of  God  as  having  human 
limbs  or  passions.  It  sometimes  elevates  the  language 
of  the  original. 

Abu-Said  wrote  scholia  in  the  margin  of  his  version, 

"  [Eichhorn,  §  287.] 

'   Gesenius,  De  Pentat.  Sam.  p.  20. 

See  Specimens  from  the  MSS.,  in  Hottinger,  Bib.  Orient  p.  98,  sqq. ;  from 
Usher's  and  Taylor's  MSS.  in  Durell,  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  parallel  Proph- 
ecies of  Jacob  and  Moses;  Oxf.  1763.  Paulus,  Spec.  p.  8,  sqq.;  from  the 
Barberine  Triglot,  in  Blanchini,  Evang.  quadrup.  vol.  ii.  p.  604.  (See  the 
description  of  it,  p.  629,  and  BjornstahVs,  in  EichJiorn^s  Repert.  vol.  iii.  p.  84, 
sq.)  Spec,  ineditse  Vers.  Arab.  Sam.  Pent,  e  Cod.  Sam.  Bibl.  Barberinee,  ed. 
&c.  A  Chr.  Hioiid ;  Hfn.  Rom.  1780,  8vo.  See  the  review  of  it  in  Mi- 
chaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol,  xvi.  p.  76,  sqq.,  and  the  better  account  of  tliis  version  in 
De  Rossi,  Spec.  var.  Lect.  et  Chald.  Esth.  Addit. ;  Tub.  1783,  p.  150,  sqq., 
and  Mler,  1.  c.  p.  137,  sqq.  See  a  description  of  the  Paris  MSS.,  No.  2  and 
3,  and  Specimens  of  them,  by  De  Sacy,  in  AWg.  Bib.  vol.  x.  p.  1,  sqq.  There 
is,  also,  a  Leyden  MS.,  for  which,  see  Spec,  philol.  contin.  descript.  Cod. 
]\IS.  Biblioth. ;  Lug.  Bat.  Partemque  inde  excerptam  Vers,  Sam.  Arab.  Pen- 
tat, Mos,  PrfES,  S.  F.  J.  Ravio,  publ.  defendit  Gnil.  Van  Vloten ;  Lug.  Bat 
1803,  4to. 


^  68.]  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  255 

which  sometimes  defend  his  translation  of  a  particular 
passage,  and  sometimes  make  it  plainer  by  a  paraphrase. 
Sometimes  he  explains  difficult  words  ;  gives  historical 
or  antiquarian  information  ;  solves  chronological  difficul- 
ties, and  sometimes  contends  with  the  Jews,  Caraites, 
and  Rabbanites." 

This  version  is  valuable  chiefly  in  revising  the  Sa- 
maritan text,  whose  history  would  be  imperfect  without 
it.  It  is  not  without  value  for  exegesis,  since  the  in- 
terpreter may  derive  many  new  explanations  from  it, 
which,  at  least,  deserve  examination.]  '' 


^68. 

VI.  PERSIAN  VERSION  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

In  the  Constantinople  Polyglot-Pentateuch,"  and  in 
the  sixth  volume  of  the  London  Polyglot,  there  is  a 
modern  Persian  translation  of  the  Pentateuch,  made 
directly  from  the  Hebrew  by  a  Jew  named  Jacob,  the 
son  of  Joseph  Tawus."^     At  the  earliest,  it  was  not  made 


•  [See  Specimens  of  these  scholia,  in  EichhorrCs  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  x.  p. 
149_176.] 

*  [In  the  Bodleyan  library  there  is  a  MS.  which  formerly  belonged  to  Dr. 
Pococke,  which  contains  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Psalms,  with  an  Arabic 
version  and  explanations.  It  is  of  little  value  for  criticism  and  exegesis. 
See  an  account  of  it,  in  Eichkorn's  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  iii.  p.  425 — 438,  and  Speci- 
mens from  Ps.  xvi.,  xl.,  and  ex.  ibid.  vol.  x.  p.  82 — 88.] 

"  See  above,  §  66,  p.  248. 

^  In  Adler,  1.  c.  p.  222,  his  name  is  thus  given :  OTij^t:  qoTi  ■na^i  ^\^^^  la» 
i.  e.  son  of  R.  Jacob,  the  son  of  the  honored  R.  Joseph  Taious.  In  the  Poly- 
glot he  is  called  ipS"i  "is  >  i.  e.  the.  honored  R.  Jacob.  See  Bernstein,  in 
BertholdCs  Krit.  Journal,  vol.  v.  p.  21.  The  name  Taurus  is  Commonly  ex- 
plained by  Tiisensis,  ex  urbe  Persica  Tus ;  (see  RosenmiiUer,  De  Vers.  Pentat. 
Pers. ;  Lips.  1813,  4to.  p.  4 ; )  but  Lorsbach  (A.  L.  Z.  1816,  No.  58,  p.  459) 
explains  it  as  a  proper  name,  which  means  Peacock,  in  Persian. 


256  DIRECT    ORIENTAL    VERSIONS.  [^  68. 

before  the  ninth  century."     It  is  executed  in  the  scru- 
pulously-literal manner  of  Aquila. 

[There  was  a  version  of  the  Bible  in  the  old  Persian 
language  in  the  times  of  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret, 
but  it  is  now  lost.  Nothing  is  known  of  the  person  or 
the  aire  of  the  author  of  this  new  version ;  but  he  could 
not  have  lived  before  the  eighth  century  ;  for  he  calls 
Babel  Bagdad,  which  was  not  built  till  762.  The  style 
of  his  work  renders  it  probable  he  lived  still  later. 

This  versioii,  following  the  Hebrew  in  a  very  literal 
manner,  often  sacrifices  the  purity  of  the  Persian  lan- 
guage for  the  sake  of  adhering  more  closely  to  the  text. 
It  imitates  the  Hebrew  constructions  ;  introduces  He- 
brew words,  foreign  as  they  may  be  to  the  Persian 
tongue  ;  and  sometimes  inserts  the  Hebrew  text,  in 
Arabic  letters,  word  for  word. 

There  are  many  chasms  in  the  Constantinople  edi- 
tion ;  words  and  whole  passages  are  omitted,  so  that 
the  text  is  often  without  meaning.  Hyde  attempted  to 
supply  these  chasms  by  a  new  version  of  his  own.  On 
account  of  its  modernness,  little  can  be  expected  from 
the  Persian  version,  for  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
It  has  scarce  any  peculiar  readings,  but  follows  the  maso- 
retic  text.  It  often  follows  Onkelos  in  the  signification 
of  words,  and  not  unfrequently  agrees  with  Saadias.  It 
is  not  known  whether  the  same  author  translated  tlie 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  Walton  had  two  manu- 
scripts of  the  Persian  Psalter  ;  but  they  were  both  very 
modern,  and  made  by  members  of  the  Roman  church.]'' 


"  Rosenmiiller,  1.  c.  Lorsbach,  1.  c.  p,  460,  places  him  in  the  16th  century. 
See,  in  the  Stud,  und  Krit.  for  1829,  p.  469,  sqq.,  Hassler's  account  of  a 
version,  previously  unknown,  of  the  Salomonic  writings. 

>>  [Eichhorn,  §  317.] 


^69. J  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  257 

CHAPTER    HI. 
THE  PRESENT  LATIN  VULGATE. 

^69. 
1.    JEROME'S    VERSION    FROM   THE    HEBREW. 

While  Jerome  was  engaged  in  amending  the  ancient 
Vulgate,  at  the  request  of  his  friend  he  undertook  a  new 
translation  from  the  Hebrew,  which  he  commenced  after 
the  year  A.  C.  385,  and  completed  in  405." 

[Some  of  his  friends,  it  seems,  found  they  were  not 
adequate  to  contend  with  the  Jews,  since  the  latter  ap- 
pealed to  the  original,  which  the  Christian  writers  could 
not  use,  and  were  therefore  obliged  to  resort  to  the  poor 
substitutes  of  the  Alexandrian  and  the  old  Latin  version. 
He  began  with  the  books  of  Samuel,  for  his  friends 
needed  them  at  the  time.  He  then  translated  the 
Prophets,  next  the  Psalms,  then  the  writings  of  Solo- 
mon, Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  then  the  Pentateuch, 
Joshua,  Ruth,  Judges,  and  Chronicles;  —  then  Tobit 
and  Judith  from  the  Chaldee.  He  concluded  with 
Daniel,  Esther,  and  Jeremiah.  He  translated  the 
apocryphal  additions  to  these  three  last  books,  but  ex- 
pressly declared  they  were  not  genuine.]  * 

He  thus  speaks  of  his  undertaking:  "  I  have  received 


"  Martianay,  Proleg.  ii.  §  1.  Hody,  1.  c.  p.  536.  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac. 
p.  667—675. 

*  [See  his  Prefaces  in  Paralip.,  in  Neemia,  Pentat,  and  Psalmos.  See, 
also,  Martianay,  1.  c.  See  Eichhom,  §  332 — 334.  He  says,  Praef.  in  Lib. 
Salom.  and  Lib.  Tobiae,  that  he  translated  the  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
Solomon's  Song,  in  three  days,  and  Tobit  in  a  single  day.] 

VOL.  I.  33 


258  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [^  69. 

the  wished-for  letters  of  my  Desiderius,  entreating 
me  to  furnish  our  friends  with  a  translation  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch from  the  Hebrew  into  the  Latin. 

"  If  the  edition  of  the  Seventy  translators  had  re- 
mained pure  and  as  they  left  it  when  they  translated  it 
into  Greek,  it  would  have  been  superfluous  for  you, 
Chromati,  most  learned  and  holy  bishop,  to  incite  me  to 
render  the  Hebrew  volumes  into  Latin.""  Again  he 
writes,  — 

"  Recently,  you  brought  forward  from  the  Psalms 
some  testimonies  concerning  our  Lord,  the  Savior,  as  you 
were  disputing  with  a  Hebrew ;  and  he,  willing  to  de- 
lude you,  asserted  of  almost  every  sentence,  that  it  was 
not  in  the  Hebrew,  as  you  quoted  against  him,  from  the 
Seventy.  You  then  earnestly  demanded  that  I  should 
make  a  new  version  into  the  Latin  tongue,  following 
Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion." 

Still  further  he  says,  "It  is  now  three  years  that 
you  have  been  perpetually  writing  to  urge  me  to  trans- 
late the  book  of  Ezra  and  Esther  out  of  the  Hebrew 
for  you."* 


Jeronm,  Praef.  ad  Pentat. :   Desiderii  mei  desideratas  accepi  epistolas 

obsecrantis,  ut  translatum  in  Latiliam  linguam  de  Hebraeo  sermone 

Pentateuchum  nostrorura  auribus  traderem.  Prsef.  in  Paralip. :  Si  LXX. 
interpretum  pura  et  ut  ab  eis  in  Grsecum  versa  est,  editio  permaneret,  super- 
liue  me,  Chromati,  Episcoporum  sanctissime  atque  doctissime,  impelleres, 
ut  Hebraea  volumina  Latino  sermone  transferrem. 

'  Ad  Sopliron.  Prasf.  in  Psalm.  0pp.  i.  p.  835 :  Quia  nupcr  cum  Hebraeo 
disputans  quaedam  pro  Domino  salvatore  de  Psalmis  protulisti  testimonia, 
volensque  ille  te  illudere  per  sermones  pene  singulos  asserebat,  non  ita  ha- 
beri  in  Hebraeo,  ut  tu  de  LXX.  interpretibus  opponebas :  studiosissime  pos- 
tulasti,  ut  post  Aquilam,  Symmachum  et  Theodotionem  novam  editionem 
Latino  sermone  transferrem.  Ad  Domnium  et  Rogatian.  Prsf.  in  Esd.  et 
Necm. :  Tertrus  annus  est,  quod  semper  scribitis  atque  rescribitis,  ut  Esdr© 
librum  et  Hester  vobis  de  HebrEO  transferam.  See,  also,  Ep.  ad  Cromatium 
et  Heliodorum,  Praef.  in  Tobiam.    Hody,  p.  356.    Martianay,  ProL  i.  §  4. 


<^69.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  259 

He  avows  a  polemic  design.     " He  knows  that 

I  have  sweat  in  learning  a  foreign  tongue,  only  for 
this  reason,  that  the  Jews  might  no  longer  insult  the 
churches  by  charging  them  with  the  falsity  of  their 
[copies  of  the]   Scriptures." 

Again  he  says,  "  That  our  friends  may  know  what 
the  Hebrew  truth  contains,  we  have  not  forged  our 
words,  but  have  translated  them  as  we  found  them 
among  the  Hebrews."'' 

By  means  of  his  diligence,  his  knowledge  of  the  He- 
brew language,  acquired  with  the  assistance  of  some 
rabbins ;  by  his  use  of  the  exegetic  reception  of  the 
Jews,  and  the  earlier  versions ;  and  by  the  sound  prin- 
ciples which  he  observed,  he  produced,  perhaps,  the  best 
work  of  the  kind  which  all  antiquity  can  boast.  The 
following  extracts  shed  light  on  his  work :  — 

"  Suddenly  a  Jew  appeared,  bringing  out  a  few  vol- 
umes, which  he  had  received  from  the  synagogue  as  if 
to  read,  and  '  Now,'  said  he,  '  you  have  what  you  called 
for  ; '  and  he  so  startled  me,  by  his  suddenness,  —  as  I 
was  doubtful  and  not  knowing  what  I  should  do,  —  that, 
leaving  every  thing  else,  I  flew  to  writing,  which  I  con- 
tinue to  follow  to  this  time."* 

" I   gave   myself,   to  be    taught,    to    a    certain 

brother,  who  from  a  Jew  had  become  a  Christian." 


"  Praef.  in  Jes. :  Q,vii  scit,  me  ob  hoc  in  peregrinse  linguae  eruditione 

sudasse,  ne  Judsei  falsitate  scripturarum  ecclesiis  ejus  diutius  insultarent. 
Ep.  89,  ad  Augustin.  iv.  2,  627 :  Ut  scirent  nostri,  quid  Hebraica  Veritas 
contineret,  non  nostra  confinximus,  sed  ut  apud  HebrsBos  invenimus,  transtu- 
limus.     {John,  vol.  L  p.  222.] 

'  Epist.  125,  ad  Damas.  0pp.  ii.  p.  563:  Subito  Hebraeus  intervenit, 
deferens  non  pauca  volumina,  quce  de  Synagoga  quasi  lecturus  acceperat. 
Et  illico,  babes,  inquit,  quod  postulaveras,  meque  dubium  et  quid  facerem 
nescientem  ita  festinus  exterruit,  ut  omnibus  prsetermissis  ad  scribenduni 
transvolarem,  quod  quidem  usque  in  praesens  facio. 


260  laIin  versions  of  the  bible.  [^69. 

"  When  but  a  youth,  after  reading  Quintilian,  and 
Tully,  and  the  best  of  the  rhetoricians,  I  shut  my- 
self up  in  the  mill  of  this  language ;  and  after  long 
time,  and  much  ado,  I  scarcely  began  to  pronounce 
these  panting  and  creaking  words ;  and,  like  one 
walking  in  a  dungeon,  discovered  a  thin,  faint  light 
falling  from  above ;  and  very  lately  I  stumbled  upon 
Daniel." 

"  There  is  a  certain  man,  from  whom  I  rejoice  that 
I  have  learned  many  things,  and  who  is  such  a  master 
of  the  Hebrew  language  that  he  is  esteemed  a  Chaldee 
among  their  scribes." 

"  I  remember  that  I,  for  the  sake  of  understanding 
this  book,  [Job,]  hired,  at  no  small  price,  a  certain  Lyd- 
ian  teacher,  who  was  esteemed  the  first  among  the  He- 
brews. I  do  not  know  whether  I  profited  at  all  bv 
his  instructions.  I  only  know  this,  that  I  could  not 
have  made  this  translation  except  I  had  known  him 
before." 

Again :  "  Since  the  Chaldee  language  is  very  much 
like  the  Hebrew,  finding  a  ready  speaker,  who  was 
well  skilled  in  both  languages,  I  made  one  day's  work 
of  it,  and  whatever  he  translated  to  me  into  Hebrew 
words,  I  explained  in  Latin  to  a  scribe,  summoned  for 
the  purpose." 

"  Very  lately  I  have  fallen  upon  Daniel,  and  have 
taken  so  great  a  disgust  to  him,  that,  with  a  sudden 
despair,  I  could  wish  to  condemn  all  my  old  labor. 
But  a  certain  Jew  encouraged  me,  and  translated  it  to 
me  in  his  own  language.  Labor  conquers  all  things ; 
and  I,  who  lately  seemed  to  be  a  sciolist  among  the 
Hebrews,  began  again  to  be  a  learner  of  the  Chaldee." 

"  I  hear  that  you make  a  jest  of  me  with  Plau- 


r 


^69.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  261 

tinus's  wit,  because  I  said  that  Barrabas,  a  Jew,  was 
mj  teacher."  Nor  is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  you 
should  mistake  Barrabas  for  Barhanina,  when  there  is 
some  likeness  between  the  words."* 

"  I  will  very  briefly  admonish  the  reader  that  I  have 
followed  the  authority  of  no  man,  but,  translating  from 
the  Hebrew,  I  have  rather  conformed  to  the  usage  of 
the  Seventy,  but  only  in  those  parts  of  it  which  do  not 
differ  much  from  the  Hebrew.  Sometimes,  also,  I  have 
remembered  Aquila,  and  Theodotion,  and  Symmachus, 
that  [on  the  one  hand]  I  might  not  alarm  the  zeal  of 
the  reader  by  too  great  novelty,  nor,  on  the  other,  con- 

"  See  Ruftn.  adv.  Hieron. 

''  Jerome,  Ep.  4,  ad  Rusticum,  0pp.  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.  774 : Cuidam  fratri, 

qui  ex  Hebraeis  crediderat,  me  in  disciplinam  dedi.  Praef.  in  Dan. :  Deniqiie 
et  ego  adolescentulus  post  Quintiliani  etTuUii  lectionem  ac  Acres  rhetoricos 
cum  me  in  linguae  hujus  pistrinum  reclusissem,  et  multo  sudore  multoque  tem- 
pore vix  coepissem  anlielantia  stridentiaque  verba  resonare  et  quasi  per  cryp- 
tarn  anibulans  rarum  desuper  lumen  aspicerem,  impegi  novissime  in  Danielem, 
etc.  (Comp.  Hodij,  p.  359.  Morinus,  Ex.  Bibl.  lib.  i.  ex.  iii.  ch.  2.)  Ep. 
142,  ad  Damas.  0pp.  iii.  p.  520 :  Est  vir  quidam,  a  quo  ego  plura  didicisse  gau- 
deo,  et  qui  Hebraeum  sermonem  ita  elimavit,  ut  inter  scribas  eorum  Chaldaeus 
existimetur.  Praef.  in  Job. :  Memini  me  ob  intelligentiam  hujus  voluminis 
Lyddaeum  quendam  praeceptorem,  qui  apud  Hebraeos  primus  haberi  putaba- 
tur,  non  parvis  redemisse  nummis,  cujus  doctrina  an  aliquid  profecerim  nes- 
cio.  Hoc  unum  scio,  non  potuisse  me  interpretari,  nisi  quod  ante  inteilex- 
eram.  (Comp.  Comment,  in  Habac.  ii.)  Praef.  in  Tobiam:  Quia  vicina  est 
Chaldaeorum  lingua  sermoni  Hebraico,  utriusque  linguae  peritissimum  lo- 
quacem  reperiens,  unius  diei  laborem  arripui,  et  quicquid  ille  mihi  Hebraicis 
verbis  expressit,  hoc  ego,  accito  Notario,  sermonibus  Latinis  exposui.  Praef. 
in  Dan. :  Impegi  novissime  in  Danielem  et  tanto  taedio  affectus  sum,  ut  des- 
peratione  subita  omnem  laborem  veterem  voluerim  contemnere.  Verum 
adhortante  me  quodam  Hebraeo  et  illud  mihi  in  sua  lingua  ingerente :  Labor 
omnia  vincit,  qui  milii  videbar  sciolus  inter  Hebraeos,  ccepi  rursus  esse  dis- 

cipulus  Chaldaicus.     Apol.  cont.  Rufin.  i.  12 :   Audio  te Plautino  in 

me  sale  ludere,  eo  quod  Barrabam  Judaeum  dixerim  praeceptorem  meum. 
{Ritfin.  adv.  Hieron.)  Nee  mirum,  si  pro  Barhanina,  ubi  est  aliqua  vocabu- 
lorum  similitudo,  scripseris  Barrabam.  Martianay,  Prol.  iii.  ad  Hieron.  0pp. 
vol.  ii.,  prizes  his  learning  too  high.  But  Lederc  rates  him  too  low.  Quaest. 
Hieronym.  iv. — vn. 


262  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [^  69. 

trary  to  my  conscience,  forsake  the  fountains  of  truth, 
and  follow  the  streamlets  of  opinions." 

And  again :  "  This  translation  follows  none  of  the 
ancient  interpreters ;  but,  from  the  Hebrew  itself,  from 
the  Arabic,  and  sometimes  from  the  Syriac,  it  takes 
now  the  words,  now  the  sense,  and  now  both."" 

"  This  is  the  rule  of  a  good  translator,  that  he  should 
express  the  idiom  of  the  foreign  language  by  the  pecu- 
liarity of  his  own Let  no  one  think  the  Latin  is 

a  very  meagre  language  because  it  cannot  render  [the 
Hebrew]  word  for  word ;  for  even  the  Greeks  translate 
many  passages  by  a  great  circumlocution,  and  do  not 
attempt  to  express  the  Hebrew  words  by  a  literal  trans- 
lation, but  by  the  peculiarities  of  their  own  tongue 

We  ought  not  to  render  word  for  word,  so  that  while 
we   follow  syllables  we  lose  the  sense."* 

Had  he  been  less  hasty,  he  would  have  made  a  better 
version.      In  the  following  passages,  he   confesses  the 

"  Prsef.  Com.  in  Eccles. :  Hoc  breviter  admonens,  quod  nullius  auctori- 
tatem  sequutus  sum :  sed  de  Hebrseo  transferens,  magis  me  LXX.  interpre- 
tum  consuetudini  coaptavi,  in  liis  duntaxat,  quse  non  multum  ab  Hebraicis 
discrepabant  Interdura  Aquilse  quoque  et  Theodotionis  et  Symmachi  re- 
cordatus  sum,  ut  nee  novitate  nimia  lectoris  studium  deterrerem,  nee  rursus 
contra  conscientiara  meam  fonte  veritatis  amisso  opinionum  rivulos  consec- 
tarer.  (Comp.  Epist.  74,  ad  Marc.  §  44.)  Prsef.  in  Job.:  Heec  autem  trans- 
latio  nullum  de  veteribus  sequitur  interpretem,  sed  ex  ipso  Hebraico  Ara- 
bicoque  sermone  et  interdum  Syro  nunc  verba,  nunc  sensum,  nunc  simul 
utrumque  resonabit. 

*  Ep.  135,  ad  Sunn,  et  Fret,  0pp.  ii.  p.  627,  sqq. :  Et  banc  esse  regulam 
boni  interpretis,  ut  IdKoficna  linguae  alterius  suae  linguae  exprimat  proprie- 

tate Nee  ex  eo  quis  Latinam  linguam  angustissimam  putet,  quod  non 

possit  verbum  de  verbo  transferre,  quum  etiam  Grajci  pleraque  vasto  circuitu 
transferant  et  verba  Hebraica  non  interpretationis  fide,  sed  linguae  suae  pro- 
prielatibus  nitentes  exprimere.  lb.  p.  639 :  Non  debemus  sic  verbum  de 
verbo  exprimere,  ut,  dnm  syllabas  sequimur,  perdamus  intelligentiam. 
Ck)mp.  Ep.  101,  ad  Pammach.  de  optimo  genere  interpret.  0pp.  iv.  pt.  ii. 
p.  248,  sqq. :  Me  in  interpretatione  Grcecorum  absque  Scripturis  Sanctis,  ubi 
et  verborum  ordo  et  mysterium  est,  non  verbum  e  verbo,  sed  sensum  ex- 
primere de  sensu.     But  he  justly  ceiisures  Aquila. 


^70.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  263 

haste  with  which  the  work  was  done :  "  Broken  by 
long  sickness,  if"  I  had  not  refrained  for  this  year,  and 
been  silent  among  you,  I  should  [before  now]  have 
consecrated  to  you  this  work  of  three  days,"  [namely, 
a  translation  of  the  books  of  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  Canticles.]  "  In  that  passage  which  we  have 
translated  incurvantem  et  refrcenantem^  we  might  have 
said  incurvum  et  lascivientem,  meaning  an  old  man  and 

a  boy ;    but  while  we  were  translating  rapidly, 

deceived  by  the  ambiguity  of  the  word  -^ijsas,  we  trans- 
lated it  by  refrcenmitem.  But  Aquila  has  more  signifi- 
cantly translated  it  by  aTtfSlovvTa,  that  is,  one  who 
does  nothing  right,  but  every  thing  perversely,  as  he 
would  say,  a  hoy^ '^ 

^  70. 

THE   RECEPTION  OF  THIS   VERSION,   AND    CORRUPTION   OF 
ITS  TEXT.     ORIGIN   OF  THE   NEW   VULGATE. 

A  superstitious  reverence  for  the  Septuagint  caused 
the  contemporaries  of  Jerome   to  oppose   this  version, 

"  Prsef.  in  Tob.  Praef.  in  LL.  Salomon.  0pp.  i.  p.  938 :  Longa  legrota- 
tione  fractus,  ne  penitus  hoc  anno  reticerem  et  apud  vos  mutus  essem, 
tridui  opus  nomini  vestro  consecravi.  Com.  in  Jes.  xix. :  In  eo  quoque, 
quod  nos  transtulimus  incurvantem  et  refrsenantem,  possumus  dicere  incur- 
vum et  lascivientem,  ut  intelligamus  senem  et  puerum.  Nos  autem  verbum 
■^1)3355,  dum  celeriter,  qupe  scripta  sunt,  vcrtimus,  ambiguitate  decepti,  re- 
fraenantem  diximus,  quod  significantius  Aquila  transtulit  argBSlovvja,  i.  e. 
qui  nihil  recte  agit,  sed  omne  perversum,  ut  puerum  significaret. 

For  the  division  of  the  text  into  cola  and  commata,  see  Praef.  in  Es. ;  into 
cola,  see  Praef.  in  Paralip.,  and  that  in  Jos. ;  for  the  admission  of  the  apoc- 
ryphal passages  in  Daniel  and  Esther,  but  marked  with  obelisks,  see  Praef. 
in  Dan.  and  Prooem.  ad  Com.  in  Dan.  See  Martianay,  Proleg.  iv.  iii.  §  5. 
See  below,  §  80. 

On  the  subject  of  this  section,  see  ErtgetstoJ'',  fiierbhj^tis  Striddn.  Inter- 
pres,  Criticus,  Monachus ;  Havn.  1797.  itosenmiiUer,  Hist.  Interp.  vol.  iii. 
p.  331,  sqq. 


264  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [^  70. 

and  declare  it  heretical.  Jerome  himself  informs  us 
of  the  reception  it  met.  "  To  this  is  added  the  zeal 
of  the  envious,  who  think  all  which  I  write  must  be 
censured ;  and  sometimes,  their  own  conscience  con- 
tending with  itself,  they  condemn  in  public  what  they 
read  in  private.  To  such  a  degree  does  this  extend, 
that  I  am  compelled  to  cry  out  and  say,  '  O  Lord,  de- 
liver my  soul  from  lying  lips  and  a  deceitful  tongue.''' 

Again :  "  I  will  only  make  this  reply  to  my  calum- 
niators :  '  Why  do  you  calumniate  and  gnaw  me  with  a 
dog's  tooth  in  public,  when  you  read  it  [my  version  of 
the  Bible]  in  secret  corners  ?  ' "  "  My  brother  Eusebius 
writes,  that  among  the  African  bishops,  who  had  come 
together  into  a  council  foi"  ecclesiastical  purposes,  he 
found  an  epistle,  purporting  to  be  written  in  my  name, 
in  which  I  expressed  my  penitence,  and  acknowledged 
that  I  had  been  seduced  by  the  Jews,  in  my  youth,  to 
translate  the  Hebrew  books  into  Latin,  in  which  books 
there  is  no  truth."  " 

Rufin  thus  writes  against  Jerome  :  "  Who,  beside  you, 
ever  laid  his  hand  on  the  divine  gift  and  inheritance  of 
the  apostles  ?  [namely,  the  Alexandrian  version.]  Who 
ever  dared  to  plunder  the  divine  Instrument,  the  deposit 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  the  apostles  transmitted  to 


"  Pr83f.  in  Esr. :  Accedunt  ad  hoc  invidorum  studia,  qui  omne  quod  scri- 
binius  reprehendendum  putant;  et  interdum  contra  se  conscientia  repug- 
nante,  publice  lacerant,  quod  occulte  legunt :  intantum  ut  clamare  compellar 
et  dicere :  Domine,  libera  animam  meam  a  labiis  iniquis  et  a  lingua  dolosa. 
Prffif.  in  Paralip. :  Hjec  obtrectatoribus  meis  tantum  respondeo,  qui  canino 
dente  me  rodunt  in  publico  detraJientes  et  legentes  in  angulis.  Apolog. 
cent  Ruf.  ii.  24:  Scribit  frater  Eusebius,  se  apud  Afros  Episcopos,  qui 
propter  ecclesiasticas  causas  ad  comitatum  venerant,  epistolam  quasi  meo 
scriptam  nomine  reperisse,  in  qua  agerem  pcenitentiam,  et  me  ab  Hebreis 
in  adolescentia  inductum  esse  testarer,  ut  Hebrsea  volumina  in  Latinum 
verterem,  in  quibus  nulla  sit  Veritas. 


^70.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BlliLE.  265 

the  churches  ?  And  is  not  that  phmdering,  where  some- 
thing is  changed  under  pretence  of  correcting  an  error  ? 
Now,  the  whole  history  of  Susannah,  which  formerly 
afforded  the  churches  an  example  of  chastity,  is  cut  out 
by  this  fellow,  and  cast  away  and  neglected." 

Then  Jerome  complains  again :  "  That  servile  Palhi- 
dius  attempted  to  renew  the  same  heresy  of  iniquity, 
and  to  heap  a  new  calumny  upon  me  for  my  translation 
of  the  Hebrew."" 

Even  Augustine  had  doubts  about  this  translation, 
and  writes  as  follows :  "  Certainly,  I  would  rather  that 
you  had  made  us  a  version  from  the  Greek  canonical 
Scriptures,  which  were  translated  by  the  Seventy. 
There  will  be  a  great  deal  of  trouble  if  your  version 
[from  the  Hebrew]  begins  to  be  commonly  read  in 
many  churches,  because  the  Latin  churches  will  then 
differ  from  the  Greek  ;  still  more,  because  now,  any  one 
who  brings  an  objection  [to  the  old  Latin  translation 
of  the  Alexandrian  version]  is  easily  confuted  by  pro- 
ducing the  Greek  original,  which  is  in  a  language  very 
well  understood ;  but  if  any  one  is  struck  with  some- 
thing new  in  what  is  translated  out  of  the  Hebrew,  and 
should  bring  the  charge  of  falsehood  against  it,  he  will 
seldom,  or  never,  refer  to  the  Hebrew  authorities,  by 
which  the  charge  might  be  staved  off.     But  even  if  he 


"  Riifinus,  adv.  Hieron.  lib.  ii. :   Quis  prseter  te  divino  muneri  et  apos- 

tolorum   heereditati  (LXX.  interpr.)  manus  intulerit  ? Quis 

ausus  est  Instrumentum  divinum,  quod  apostoli  ecclesiis  tradiderunt,  et 
depositum  sancti  spiritus  compilare?  Annon  est  compilare,  cum  qusedam 
quidem  immutantur  et  error  dicitur  corrigi?  Nam  omnis  ilia  historia  de 
Susanna,  quae  castitatis  exemplum  prsebebat  ecclesiis,  ab  isto  abscissa  est 
et  abjecta  atque  posthabita,  etc.  [Procem.  Dialog,  adv.  Pelagian. :  Palla- 
dius  servilis  nequitise  eandem  hseresin  instaurare  conatus  est,  et  novam 
translationis  Hebraicse  mihi  calumniam  struere,  etc.] 

VOL.  I.  34 


266  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  l^^^' 

should  refer  to  those  testimonies,  who  could  bear  to  have 
so  many  Latin  and  Greek  authorities  condemned  ?  " 

And  again  savs  Augustine,  "Respecting  your  trans- 
lation, you  have  convinced  me  of  the  advantage  you 
hope  to  gain,  by  translating  the  Scriptures  out  of  the 
Hebrew,  namely,  that  you  may  make  known  those 
passages   which    were    omitted   or   corrupted    by   the 

Jews I  wish  for  your  translation  of  the   Sep- 

tuagint,  in  order  that,  as  far  as  possible,  ^ve  may  be 
freed  from  the  great  ignorance  of  the  Latin  translators, 
who,  with  such  little  ability,  have  dared  to  undertake 
it ;  and  that  they  who  think  I  envy  you  on  account  of 
your  useful  works,  should  at  length  understand,  if  it  is 
possible,  that  /  am  unwilling  your  version  from  the 
Hehreio  should  he  read  in  the  churches^  from  fear  that, 
by  bringing  forward  something  new,  and  opposed  to 
the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  we  should  disturb  the 
Christians  whose  hearts  and  ears  have  been  accustomed 
to  that  translation  which  was  even  ap})roved  of  by  the 
apostles  themselves."" 

"  Augustinus,  Ep.  88,  Opp.  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.  610 :  Ego  sane  te  mallem  Grsecas 
potius  canonicas  nobis  interpretari  Scripturas,  quai  LXX.  interpretuin  per- 
hibentur.  Perdurum  erit  enim,  si  tua  interpretatio  per  multas  ecclesias 
frequentius  coeperit  lectitari,  quod  a  Graecis  ecclesiis  Latins  ecclesiEB  dis- 
sonabunt,  maxime  quia  facile  contradictor  convincitur  Giseco  prolate  libro, 
id  est,  lingua  notissima:  quisquis  autem  in  eo,  quod  ex  Hebrseo  translatuni 
est,  aliquo  insolito  pennotus  fuerit,  ut  falsi  crimen  intenderit,  vix  aut  nun- 
quam  ad  Hebrisa  testimonia  pervenitur,  quibus  defendatur  objectum.  Quod 
m  etiam  perventum  fuerit,  lot  Latinos  et  GrcEcas  audoritates  damnari  quis 
feraf?  Ep.  97,  ib.  p.  641  :  De  interpretatione  jam  mihi  persuasisti,  qua 
utilitate   Scripturas  volueris  transferre  de  Hebraeis,  ut  scilicet  ea,  quce  a 

Judseis  prsetermissa  vel  corrupta  sunt,  proferres  in  medium Ideo  autem 

desidero  interpretationem  tuam  de  Septuaginta,  ut  et  tanta  Latinorum  inter- 
pretum,  qui  qualescunque  hoc  ausi  sunt,  quantum  possumus  imperitia  carca- 
mus,  et  hi  qui  me  invidere  putant  utilibus  laboribus  tuis,  tandem  aliquando, 
si  fieri  potest,  intelligant,  propterea  jne  nolle  tuam  ex  Hebrceo  interpreta- 
tionem in  ecclesiis  legi,  ne  contra  LXX.  auctoritatem  tanquam  novum  aliquid 


^70.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  267 

However,  others  received  it  favorably.  Jerome,  in 
his  defence  against  Rufin,  says,  "  I  thought  I  had  de- 
served well  of  my  Latin  friends when  even  the 

Greeks,  notwithstanding  they  have  so  many  interpreters 
of  their  own,  did  not  take  oifence  at  a  version  from  the 
Latin."  "  How  much  more  ought  the  Latins  to  be 
grateful,  when  they  see  Greece  rejoicing  that  something- 
has  been  borrowed  from  them  !  "     "  Sophronius 

translated  my  minor  works  into  elegant  Greek ;  and 
likewise  the  Psalter  and  the  Prophets,  which  I  had 
translated  from  Hebrew  into  Latin."" 

Even  Augustine  both  tolerated  and  used  it.  About 
403  A.  C,  he  w-rites,  "  One  of  our  brother  bishops, 
when  he  commanded  that  your  translation  should  be 
read  in  the  church  over  which  he  presided,  knew  there 
was  something  which  you  had  put  in  the  prophet  Jonah 
very  different  from  what  had  been  inured  in  the  senses 
and  memory  of  all,  and  repeated  through  the  course  of 
so  many  years." 

Jerome  himself  bears  witness  to  the  reception  of  his 
version,  in  a  letter  to  Lucinius,  a  bishop  of  Spain :  "  I 
gave  the  canon  of  Hebrew  truth  —  excepting  the  Oc- 

proferentes,  magno  scandalo  perturbemus  plebes  Christi,  quarum  aures  et 
corda  illam  interpretationeni  audire  consueverunt,  quas  etiam  ab  Apostolis 
approbata  est.  See,  also,  De  Civit.  Dei,  xviii.  43.  [See  more  on  this  theme 
in  Hody,  1.  c.  pt.  ii.  ch.  iv.] 

"  Apolog'.  adv.  Rufin.  lib.  ii. :     Piitabam   bene  mereri  de   Latinis  meis 

quod  etiam  Giisci  versum  de  Latino  post  tantos  interpretes  non  fas- 

tidiimt.  Prsef.  in  Esram:  Q,uanto  magis  Latini  grati  esse  deberent,  quod 
exsultantem  cernerent  Grseciam  a  se  aliquid  mutuari.    Catal.  Scriptt.  eccles. 

ch.  134 :    Sophronius opuscula  mea  in  Graecum  eleganti  sermone 

transtulit,  Psalterium  quoque  et  Prophetas,  quos  nos  de  Hebraeo  in  Latinura 
transtulimus.  [See  the  testimonies  of  other  ancient  writers  in  Hody,  1,  c, 
ch,  v.] 


268  J.ATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [§  ^^^^ 

tateuch,  which  I  have  still  in  my  hands  —  to  your  ser- 
vants and  notaries  to  be  copied."  This  was  ahoiit 
395  A.  C.'' 

Augustine  speaks  of  it  in  a  letter  to  Audax  :  "  I  have 
not   the    Psalter    translated    from    the    Hebrew   by  St. 

Jerome, so  that,  in  common  with  you,  we  still 

lack  that  which  is  perfect."  Again  :  "  But  not  accord- 
ing to  the   Seventy in   Vv^hom   some   things   are 

obscure,  because  they  are  figurative,  but  as  they  have 
been  translated  from  the  Hebrew  into  Latin,  by  Jerome, 
the  presbyter,  who  is  skilled  in  both  languages."* 

About  two  hundred  years  after  Jerome's  death,  his 
translation  had  acquired  an  importance  at  Rome,  along 
with  the  ancient  Vulgate.  Thus  Gregory  the  Great, 
who  died  604,  speaks  of  it  as  follows :  "I  shall  dis- 
course, indeed,  upon  the  new  translation ;  but,  as  the 
case  at  issue  requires,  I  shall  make  use  of  both  the  old 
and  the  new  for  evidence  ;  and,  since  the  apostolical 
chair — over  which,   by   God's   authority,   I   preside  — 

"  Augustinus,  Ep.  88,  Opp.  iv.  pt  ii.  p.  610:  Quidam  frater  noster  Epis- 
copus,  quum  lectitari  instituiaset  in  ecclesia,  cui  prasest,  interpretationem 
tuam,  novit  quiddam  longe  aliter  abs  te  positum  apud  Jonam  prophetam, 
quam  erat  omnium  sensibus  memoriseque  inveteratum  et  tot  setatum  suc- 
cessionibus  decantatum,  etc.  Jerome  ad  Lucinium,  (Episcop.  Hispan.)  Ep. 
28,  ib.  p.  579:  Canonem  Hebraica)  vcritatis,  excepto  Octatencho,  quein 
nunc  in  manibus  habeo,  pueris  tuis  et  notariis  dedi  describendum.  See  the 
favorable  judgment  of  Jo.  Cassiamis,  llucheriiis  Lugduncnsis,  Viiicaitius 
Lirinensis,  Salviamis  Massiliensis,  and  others,  in  Hody,  1.  c.  p.  397,  sqc]. 

'  Augustinus,  Ep.  261,  ad  Audacem :  Psalterium  a  sancto  Hieronymo  trans- 

latum  ex  Hebrroo  non  habeo ita  ilhid,  quod  perfectum  est,  tecum  nos 

quoque  requirimus.     De  Doctr.  Christ,  iv,  7 :   Non  autem  secundum  LXX. 

interpretes obscuriora  nonnulla,  quia  magis  tropica  eorum :  sed  sicut 

ex  Hebrseo  in  Latinum  eloquium  Presbytero  Hieronymo  utriusque  ]ingTia3 
perito  interpretante  translata  sunt.  Comp.  Qusst.  20,  54,  in  Deuteron. ;  7, 
15,  19,  24,  25,  in  librum  Jos. ;  and  16,  37,  47,  56,  in  Jud. 


^70.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  269 

makes  use  of  both,  the  work  of  my  zeal  will  also  be 
sustamed  by  both."" 

The  other  churches  followed  the  example  of  Rome : 
Isidore  of  Seville,  who  died  636,  says,  "  But  Jerome, 
the  presbyter,  translated  the  sacred  Scriptures  from 
Hebrew  into  Latin;  and,  in  general,  all  the  churches, 
every  where,  use  his  version,  because  it  is  most  true 
in  giving  the  meaning  of  the  original,  and  the  clearest 
in  its  language."*  Thus,  gradually,  it  l>ecame  the 
church  version  universally  used.  The  apocryphal  books, 
Baruch,  Ecclesiasticus,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the 
two  books  of  Maccabees,  were  taken  from  the  Itala." 

But  then  it  experienced  a  fate  similar  to  that  of  the 
old  Latin  and  Alexandrian  versions.  It  was  corrupted 
by  the  design  or  the  carelessness  of  the  transcribers. 
[Eichhorn  says,  "  Now,  since  this  version  was  author- 
ized in  so  many  churches,  many  copies  became  neces- 
sary, and  multiplication  of  them  must  also  multiply 
errors  in  the  text.  But  the  uncritical  carelessness  ot 
half-learned  monks  was  still  more  injurious. 

"  1.  The  old  Latin  version  was  used  in  connection 
with  the  neiv,  which  had  proceeded  from  the  Hebrew. 
The  latter  was  often  corrected  from  the  former,  with 


"  Gregoiius  Magnus,  Prfef.  Moral,  in  Job.:  Novam  vero  translationem 
edissero,  sed  ut  comprobationis  causa  exigit,  nunc  novam,  nunc  veterem 
per  testimonia  assumo  :  ut  quia  sedes  Apostolica  (cui  auctore  Deo  prsesideo) 
utraque  utitur,  niei  quoque  labor  studii  ex  utraque  fulciatur.  Compare  his 
Moral.  XX.  23.    Martianay,  Prolog,  ii.  §  4.     Hody,  p.  401. 

''  Isidorus  Hispalensis,  De  Offic.  eccles.  i.  12 :  De  Hebraeo  autem  in  La- 
tinum  eloquium  tantummodo  Hieronymus  presbyter  sacras  Scripturas  con- 
vertit :  cvjxis  editione  generaliter  omnes  ecclesi(B  usqueqiiaqite  idimtur,  pro  eo 
quod  veracior  sit  in  sententiis,  et  clarior  in  verbis. 

For  the  reception  of  the  Psalterium  Gallicanum,  see  Hody,  p.  385.  Mar- 
tianay, Prolog,  ii.  §  5. 

'  See  Hody,  p.  354,  sqq.     Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  239,  sqq. 


270  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [^  70. 

good  intentions,  but  without  critical  skill.  Martianay 
has  found  many  passages  of  this  kind  in  the  books  of 
Proverbs  and  the  Kings,  and  marked  them  in  the  margin 
of  his  edition  of  the  Bibliothcca  divina." 

"  2.  Sometimes  scholars,  with  this  uncritical  dihgence, 
compared  passages  where  the  same  thing  was  related,  or 
the  same  phrase  used,  and  altered  or  interpolated  one 
from  the  other,  —  a  misfortune  which  the  books  of 
Chronicles  and  the  Kings  have  experienced. 

"3.  A  well-read  transcriber  enriched  his  copy,  or  a 
learned  reader  his  codex,  with  glosses  from  such  writers 
as  had  made  a  literary  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  had 
revised  it  from  Josephus  or  Jerome.  Others  interpolated 
it  from  liturgical  writings  ;  they  mostly  adhered  to  the 
scriptural  expressions,  but  took  some  liberties  with  them 
which  were  not  to  be  censured.  Sometimes  they 
blended  several  passages  together  ;  sometimes  inserted 
words ;  here,  for  the  sake  of  explanation ;  there,  to 
render  the  passage  more  rhythmical,  or  fit  for  singing. 
The  monks,  intentionally  or  otherwise,  might  easily 
make  use  of  a  liturgical  text  in  transcribing,  either 
because  they  wrote  from  memory,  or  because  they 
thought  it  improper  that  the  church  should  read  in  one 
way,  and  sing  in  another.  Finally,  many  pillars  of  the 
orthodox  church  allowed  themselves  to  make  orthodox 
additions,  in  order  to  render  some  passages  more  con- 
vincing in  dogmatic  theology."]  * 

Roger  Bacon,  as  quoted  by  Hody,  says,  "When  the 
saints  quote  the  words  of  Scripture,  according  to  that 

"  [See  Martianay,  ad  Lib.  Sam.  I.,  in  his  edition  of  Jerome,  vol.  i.  p. 
333,  sq.  Mutuata  sunt  e  LXX.  interpretibus,  sive  ab  illis  Latinorum 
translationibus,  quarum  viguit  usus  ante  Hieronymum.  Innumcra  prope 
ejusmodi  additamenta  in  libris  preecioue  Regum.] 

*  [Eichhorn,  §  335.] 


§  70.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  271 

translation,  (the  Septuagint,)  they  think  that  that,  which 
they  cite,  is  the  same  that  is  now  in  the  Bible  of  the  Lat- 
ins  They  corrupt  the  first  translation  of  Jerome, 

which  alone  is  in  the  Bibles,  by  the  second,  which  alone 
is  in  the  Originals,  (that  is,  in  Jerome's  Commentaries.) 
Again,  they  (the  editors)  take  what  they  wish  from  a 
similar  translation,  that  was  made  up  not  only  from  the 
versions  quoted  in  the  original  works  of  the  saints,  but 
from  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus,  who  explains  the  text. 
From  this  source  the  moderns  correct  many  passages, 
and  change  them  to  conform  to  him."" 

Even  Baronius  mentions  this  corruption  :  "  It  hap- 
pened after  the  time  of  Gregory,  as  there  were  two 
translations  in  common  use  at  the  same  time,  namely, 
the   old  and  the   new,   that    they   sometimes   furnished 

occasion  for  disagreement  and  contention But  it 

was  provided,  and  most  wisely  decreed  by  divine  Prov- 
idence, that  one  version  should  be  made  out  of  the  two, 
for  common  use  in  all  the  churches ;  and  this  one  might 
be  said  to  be  common  to  all,  and  acknowledged  under 


"^  See  Hody,  p.  427,  sq. :   Cum  sancti  recitant  verba  Scripturfe  secundum 
illam  translationem,  (LXX.,)  putant  quod  una  et  eadem  est,  quam  allegant 

sancti,  et  quae  dicitur  esse  nunc  in  Biblia  Latinorum Corrumpunt  pri- 

mam  translationem  Jeronymi,  quas  sola  est  in  Bibliis,  per  secundam,  quae 
sola  est  in  Originalibus.  Iterum  accipiunt  quse  volunt,  a  simili  transla- 
tione  et  composita  non  solum  ab  illis  translationibus  recitatis  in  Originali- 
bus sanctorum,  sed  a  Joscpho  in  antiquitatum  libris,  qui   exponit  textum. 

Unde  moderni  corrigunt  multa  et  mutant  per  eum.     Hugo,  in  Correc- 

torium,  ad  1  Kings,  xiv.  d.,  says,  Hoc  [namely,  this  passage]  Hebrsei,  Beda 
et  antiqui  non  habent,  sed  sumtum  est  de  Josepho.  See  Doderlein,  in  Literar. 
Museum,  vol.  i.  p.  35.  Roger  Bacon,  again,  says,  Ab  officio  ecclesise  multa 
accipiunt  et  ponunt  in  textu.  lb.  p.  37,  sqq.  Hugo,  ad  Job.  xix. :  Hoc  enim 
(scdvatorem  meitm)  quidam  scioli  apponunt  in  textu,  quod  videtur /acere  ad 
Jidem,  et  quia  cantatur  in  ecclesia.  However,  the  judgment  of  Pfdffer 
(Crit.  sac.  c.  xiL  p.  790)  and  of  Carpzov  (Crit.  sac.  p.  672)  is  exaggerated, 
as  is  also  even  that  of  Baronius. 


'2.12  LATIN    VEilSlONS    OF    THE    BIbLF..  [C)  71. 

one   name   by   all,   and    then    tlie   terms    old  and   neiu 
version  would  be  laid  aside." 

CRITICAL   ATTEMPTS  TO   CORRECT  THIS   VERSION. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  about  802, 
Alcuin,  at  the  command  of  Charlemagne,  amended  this 
version,  although,  as  it  appears,  he  did  not  follow  gen- 
uine critical  principles.  This  is  shown  by  various  au- 
thorities.* Thus  Baroniiis  says,  "  It  had  come  to  pass 
that  it  [the  Vulgate  edition]  had  become  corrupted  and 
full  of  errors,  through  the  fault  of  the  numerous  scribes 
that  had  copied  it.  Charles,  bearing  this  but  ill,  took 
great  pains  that  it  should  be  published  as  correctly  as 
possible,  and  restored  to  its  original  integrity  and  value. 

He  committed  the  work   to  Albinus,   [Alcuin,] 

that  he  might  accomplish  it.""     Charles  himself  says. 


"  Baronius,  Annal.  ad  An.  231,  (see  §  47 :)  Accidit  post  Gregorii 
tempora,  ut  quoniam  duaj   simul  vulgatae  editiones,  vetus  et  nova,  dissen- 

sionum  ac  contentionum  interdum  ministrarent  occasionem Sed  divine 

afflante  Numine  provisum  est  optimeque  consultum,  ut  ad  ecclesiasticum 
communem  usum  una  ex  duabus,  quae  usui  omnibus  asset  ecclesiis,  confla- 
retur,  quse  communis  omnibus  atque  vulgata  uno  nomine  a  cunctis  diceretiu", 
explosa  ilia  Veteris  et  Novse  nomenclatura.  For  the  doubts  of  Catholic 
writers  respecting  the  author  of  the  Vulgate,  see  Hody,  p.  547,  sqq. 

**  See  Capitular.  Reg.  Franc,  bib.  vi.  c.  xxvii.  Siegebert  Gemblac.  ad 
An.  790,  and  De  Script,  eccles.  [See,  also,  Charlemagne's  Constitutio  de 
Emendatione  Librorum,  &c.,  in  Meier,  Leben  und  Wandel  Karls  des  Gros- 
sen  ;  Ham.  1839,  vol.  ii.  p.  120,  sq.,  and  p.  199,  sqq.,  published,  also,  in  Bu- 
luze,  Capit  vol.  i.  p.  203.] 

"  Baronius,  Annal.  ad  An.  778 :  Acciderat,  ut  ipsa  multiplicium  librario- 
rum  exscribentium  vitio  mendis  obsita  jam  vilesceret.  Quod  periniquo  ani- 
mo  ferens  Carolus,  ut  quam  emendatissima  ederetur,  in  pristinamque  vindi- 

caretur  integritatem   atque  splendorem,    studio   propcnsiori    curavit 

Opus  Albino  delegavit,  ut  absolveret.  See,  also,  Mcuin.  Ep.  ad  Gislam, 
prefixed  to  lib.  vi.  Comment,  in  Joannem. 


^71.]  LATIN    VERSlOiNS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  273 

"  It  has  always  been  our  care  to  improve  the  state  of 
our  churches  by  sleepless  study ;  to  repair  the  temple 
of  letters,  now  fallen  to  decay  through  the  sloth  of  our 
predecessors ;  and,  by  our  own  example,  to  excite  as 
many  others  as  possible  to  the  study  of  the  sacred  books  ; 
and,  God  aiding  us  in  all  things,  we  have  now  carefully 
corrected  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
which  had  become  corrupted  through  the  unskilfulness 
of  transcribers.""  ["It  seems  probable,"  says  Hug, 
"  from  his  language,  that  Charles  himself  assisted  in 
making  the  correction.  The  Vulgate,  thus  amended, 
was   introduced  to  all  the   churches  of  France,  by  the 

"  [Carolus,  Dei  fretus  auxilio  Rex  Francorum  et  Langobardorum  ac  Pa- 
tricius  Romanorum,  religiosis  lectoribus  nostrse  ditioni  subjectis.  Cum  nos 
divina  semper  domi  forisque  dementia,  sive  in  bellorura  eventibus,  sive  in 
pacis  tranquillitate  custodiat,  etsi  rependere  quicquam  ejus  beneficiis  tenui- 
tas  huraana  non  praevalet,  quia  est  insestimabilis  misericordia?  Deus  noster, 
devotas  suae  servituti  benigne  approbat  voluntates.  Igitur  quia  curse  nobis 
est  ut  nostrarum  Ecclesiarum  ad  meliora  semper  proficiat  status,  obliteratam 
psene  majorum  nostrorum  desidia  reparare  vigilante  studio  literarum  sata- 
gimus  officinam,  et  ad  pernoscenda  studia  liberalium  artium  nostro  etiam 
quos  possumus  invitamus  exemplo.  Inter  quse  jampridem  universos  veteris 
ac  novi  instrumentl  libros,  librariorum  imperitia  depravatos,  Deo  nos  in  omni- 
bus adjuvante,  examussim  correximus.  Accensi  praeterea  memoriae  vene- 
randffi  Pippini  genitoris  nostri  exemplis,  qui  totas  Galliarum  Ecclesias  Ro- 
manae  traditionis  suo  studio  cantibus  decoravit,  nos  nihilominus  soUerti 
easdem  curamus  intuitu  prascipuarum  insignire  serie  lectionum.  Denique 
quia  ad  nocturnale  officium  compilatas  quorundam  casso  labore,  licet  recto 
intuitu,  minus  tamen  idoneo,  reperimus  lectiones,  quippe  quae  et  sijne  auc- 
torum  suorum  vocabulis  essent  positae,  et  infinitis  vitiorum  anfractibus  sca- 
terent,  non  sumus  passi  nostris  in  diebus  in  divinis  lectionibus  inter  sacra 
ofRcia  inconsonantes  perstrepere  soloecismos,  atque  earundem  lectionum  in 
melius  reformare  tramitem  mentem  intendimus.  Idque  opus  Paulo  Diacono, 
familiari  clientulo  nostro,  elimandum  injunximus,  scilicet  ut  studiose  Ca- 
tholicorum  Patrum  dicta  percurrens,  veluti  ex  lectissimis  eorum  pratis  cartes 
quosque  flosculos  legeret,  et  in  unum  quaeque  essent  utilia  quasi  sertum  ap- 
taret.  Qui  nostras  Celsitudini  devote  parere  desiderans,  tractatus  atque 
sermones  diversorum  Catholicorum  Patrum  perlegens,  et  optima  quteque 
decerpens,  in  duobus  voluminibus  per  totius  anni  circulum  congruentes 
cuique  festivitati  distincte  et  absque  vitiis  nobis  obtulit  lectiones.     Qua- 

voL.  I.  35 


274  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [^  ^1* 

royal  command.  Thus  Charles  decrees,  '  It  is  our  will, 
and  we  order  and  command  our  legates  (missis)  that 
genuine  copies  of  the  canonical  books  be  had  in  the 
churches,  as  we  have  frequently  commanded  in  another 
capitulary.' "" 

Baronius  says,  "  The  Vulgate  was  amended  from  the 
more  ancient  and  true  sources."  Hody  thinks  it  was 
corrected  by  comparing  it  with  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
originals,  as  well  as  from  the  best  Latin  manuscripts. 
Alcuin,  in  his  own  commentaries,  corrects  Jerome's  ver- 
sion by  the  Hebrew  original.]  * 

In  the  eleventh  century,  Lanfranc,  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  undertook  a  new  emendation.  Thus  Ro- 
bertus  de  Monte  says,  "  Since  the  Scriptures  were 
greatly  corrupted  by  the  errors  of  transcribers,  he  (Lan- 
franc) desired  to  correct  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  and  also  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
after  the  orthodox  faith ;  and,  accordingly,  he  carefully 
amended  many  of  those  [copies]  which  we  use  day  and 
night  in  the  service  of  the  church ;  and  this  he  did,  not 
only  with  his  own  hands,  but  also  with  those  of  his  pu- 
pils  All  the  church  throughout  the  western  world, 

rum  textum  nostra  sagacitate  perpendentes,  nostra  eadem  volumina  auc- 
toritate  constabilimus,  vestrceque  religion!  in  Christi  Ecclesiis  tradimus  ad 
legendum.    IMer,  1.  c.  p.  199,  sqq. 

Alcuin  says,  that  he  "  corrected  the  divine  history  at  the  command  of  tlic 
king."  See  Hody,  p.  410.]  Caroli  M.  Pra3f.  Homiliarum  Pauli  Diaconi ; 
Spiraj,  1482 ;  Colon.  1530,  1539,  1557. 

■^  Hug,  §  121. 

''  [Com.  in  Gen.  xxv.  8:  Quomodo  convenit  Abrahfe  tam  sancto  viro, 
quod  dicitur  et  defidens  mortuus  est  f  Responsum  in  Hebrseo  non  habetur 
deficiens,  sed  a  LXX.  interpretibus  additum  est.  See  this,  and  other  in- 
stances, in  Hody,  p.  409.]  See  Hug's  comparison  of  Von  Speye/s  MS. 
of  Alcuin's  edition,  §  123. 


§71.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  275 

both  the  French  and  English,  rejoices  that  it  is  illumi- 
nated by  the  light  of  this  emendation."" 

In  the  twelfth  century,  Cardinal  Nicolaus,  deacon  of 
St.  Damasus,  and  a  good  Hebrew  scholar,  undertook 
to  make  a  new  emendation  of  the  Vulgate.  He  says, 
"  Looking  over  the  libraries,  i  was  unable  to  iind  any 
correct  copies  of  the  Scriptures  ;  for  even  those  which 
were  said  to  be  corrected  by  the  most  learned  men,  dif- 
fered so  much  from  one  another,  that  1  found  almost  as 
many  different  manuscripts  as  copies."*  [But  this  state- 
ment applies  only  to  Rome,  where,  perhaps,  the  text  of 
Alcuin's  emendation  was  not  received ;  though  Roger 
Bacon  says,  "  it  was  horribly  corrupted,"  in  France  and 
England,  in  his  time.] 

About  this  time,  also,  there  appeared  the  so  called 
Epanorthoice,  or  Correctoria  Biblica,"  by  which  attempts 
were  made  to  establish  the  true  text.  But  these  were 
not  purely  critical,  but  rather  exegetical  works.  [From 
these  Correctoria,  says  Eichhorn,  which  are  valuable 
monuments  for  the  critical  history  of  the  text  of  the 
Latin  version,  it  is  evident  that  the  old  manuscripts 
of  the  Latin  version  differed  far  more  than  the  critical 
editions  of  the  same  version ;  that  many  of  the  present 
readings  WTre  formerly  declared  spurious,  and  that  we 
cannot  hope  to  recover  the  genuine  text.]  "^ 

"  Robertus  de  Monte,  in  his  Accessionibus  ad  Siegebcrt.  ad  An.  1089,  in 
Hodji,  p.  416. 

''  [ATcoZaiw,  De  sac.  Scrip,  emendat,  in  Hody,  p.  417.] 

"  CoiTectorium  Biblicum  of  Abbot  Stephen,  about  1150.  (See  Hody,  p. 
418.  Histoire  Litt.  de  la  France,  vol.  ix.  p.  123,  sqq.)  Correctorium  Sor- 
bon. ;  Paris.  (See  R.  Simon,  Hist.  Crit  des  Verss.  du  N.  T.  ch.  ix,  p.  114. 
Doderlein,  Litter.  Mus.  vol.  ii,  p.  197,  sqq.)  Correctorium  Hugonis  a  Sand. 
Caro,  about  1236.  (See  Hug,  1.  c.  Rosenmidler,  Handbuch,  vol.  iii.  p.  263, 
sqq.     Doderlein,  I.  c.^.lL)     See  other  Correctoria  of  the  Dominicans. 

"^  \Eichhorn,  '^  336.     Eichhorn  does  not  treat  this  subject  with  liis  usual 


276  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    IJIBLE.  [ V'^ ' 

Roger  Bacon,  in  his  epistle  to  Clement  IV.,  speaks  of 
the  rashness  with  which  corrections  were  made  in  the 
text.  "  Every  reader,  even  in  the  lower  order  of  the 
clergy,  corrects  as  he  pleases ;  and  the  same  is  done  by 

the  preachers Each  one  changes  what  he  does 

not  understand.  But  the  preachers,  especially,  have 
thrust  themselves  in,  to  aid  in  this  correction  ;  and  now, 
for  twenty  years  and  more,  they  have  presumed  to  make 
their  own  corrections,  and  insert  them  in  the  Scripture. 
But  afterwards  they  make  new  alterations  to  contradict 
the  old,  and  now  others  vacillate  still  more  than  their 
predecessors,  not  knowing  where  they  are.  From  this 
cause  their  correction  is  the  worst  of  corruptions,  and 
God's  text  is  destroyed."" 
[Again,  Bacon  says,  "  The  text  is,  for  the  most  part, 

horribly  corrupted, and  it  is  doubtful  where  it  is 

corrupted And  so  doubts  arise  from  the  disagree- 
ment of  the  correctors ;  for  the  correctors,  or  rather  the 
corrupters^  throughout  the  world,  are  almost  as  numerous 
as  the  readers ;  for  every  one  has  the  presumption  to 
change  what  he  does  not  understand,  —  a  liberty  not  to 


copiousness.  He  declares  the  version  valuable  for  Protestants  as  well  as 
Catholics,  but  does  not  enter  upon  the  merits  or  tlie  history  of  it.] 

Quilibet  lector  in  ordine  Minorum  corrigit,  ut  vult,  et  similiter  apud 

Praedicatores et  quilibet  mutat  quod  non  intelligit Sed  PrsR- 

dicatores  maxime  intromiserunt  se  de  hac  correctione,  et  jam  sunt  viginti 
anni  et  plures,  quod  prsesumpserunt  facere  suam  correctionera  et  redegerunt 
earn  in  scriptis.  Sed  postea  fecerunt  aliam  ad  reprobationem  illius,  et  modo 
vacillant  plusquam  alii,  nescientes  ubi  sint.  Unde  eorum  correctio  est  pes- 
sima  corruptio  et  destruitur  textus  Dei.  See,  also,  Correctorium  Biblise, 
cum  difficilium  quarundam  dictionum  luculenta  interpretatione  per  Magda- 
lium  Jacobum,  Gaudenscm,  Ordinis  Prasdic;  Col.  1508,  8vo.  [Carpzov,  Crit. 
sac.  p.  G85,  sqq.  Rosc7imiUler,  1.  c.  p.  262.)  On  a  Correctormm  of  the  Do- 
minicans in  MS.,  at  tlie  Pauline  library  in  Leipzig,  see  Carpzov,  p.  694, 
sqq.;  on  another,  in  the  Academical  library,  at  Freiburg,  see  Hug,  1.  c 
§  125. 


§71.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  277 

be  taken  even  with  the  works  of  poets, but  here 

every  reader  alters  to  suit  his  own  whim."]  " 

In  the  preface  to  the  Leipsic  Correctoruwi,  it  is  said, 
"  We  have  comprised  as  much  as  we  could,  in  a  short 
space,  from  the  glosses  of  St.  Jerome  and  other  teachers, 
from  the  books  of  the  Hebrews,  and  the  most  ancient 
manuscripts,  written  before  the  time  of  Charlemagne ; 
and   we   have   inserted    here   in    short  notes    what  we 

thought was   doubtful  or  superfluous   in   various 

modern    Bibles Therefore,  in    the    text  of   the 

books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  contained  in 
the  Hebrew  canon,  wherever  you  see  a  red  point  over 
a  word  or  syllable,  or  between  two  words,  you  may 
know  that  it  rests  on  the  authority  of  many  expositors, 
and  ancient  books,  and  was  received  among  the  He- 
brews. But  if  a  word,  or  phrase,  has  a  rer/  line  beneath 
it,  it  shows  that  the  ancient  books,  and  the  ancient 
copies,  did  not  contain  it ;  and  especial  heed  must  be 
taken  when  a  red  point  is  placed  under  a  word,  for  that 
shows  the  word  was  in  the  Hebrew."* 


"  De  Lat.  Vulsr.  Erroribus,  cited  in  Hodxj,  p.  420. 

'  Quantum  in  brevi  potuimus,  ex  giossis  benedicti  Hieronymi  et  aliorum 
Doctorum  et  ex  libris  Hebrseorum  et  antiquissimis  exemplaribus,  quse  jam 
ante  tempora  Caroli  M.  scripta  fuerunt,  hie  in  brevissima  notula  scripsimus 
ea,  qusB  ex  novis  et  divei-sis  Bibliis  propter  varias  litteras  magis  duhia  vel 

superjlua  credebamus Ubicunque  ergo  in  textu  librorum  V.  T.,  qui  in 

Hebrfeo  canone  continentur,  punctum  de  minio  super  aliquam  dictionem  vel 
syllabam  vel  inter  duas  dictiones  videris,  scias,  illuc  cum  auctoritate  multo- 
rum  expositorum  et  antiquorum  librorum  etiam  sic  apud  Hebrseos  haberi. 
Si  vero  dictio  ilia,  vel  amplius,  linea  de  minio  subjecta  fuit,  lii  libri  exposi- 
torum et  antiqui  non  habent,  et  tunc  maxime  cautum  est,  si  juxta  Hebrseos 
punctum  de  minio  suppositum  habeat. 

The  following  is  a  specimen  of  the  Correctorium  of  Cologne.  Gen.  vi. : 
A''on  permanehit  Spiritus  mens  in  homine  in  (Bternum.  Hebraica  Veritas  ha- 
bet:  Non  disceptabit  Spiritus  mens  in  seternum,  Expositio  Chaldaica  sic 
habet :  Non  erigetur  generatio  putrida  contendere  coram  me  in  aeternum. 
Secundum  Paulum  Burgensem  sic  :  Non  vaginabitur  spiritus  meus  in  ho- 


278  LATIN    VERSIOx\S    OF    THE    BIBLE.  '  [^  72. 

§72. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  PRINTED  TEXT  OF  THE  VULGATE. 

After  the  invention  of  printing,  the  variations  in  the 
text  of  the  Vulgate  appeared  more  plainly,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  critical  attempts  were  made  to  amend  it." 

[Stephens  was  the  first  to  take  any  important  meas- 
ures to  restore  the  text  of  this  version.     His  first  edition, 

mine.  Pracarens ;  media  correpta,  i.  e.  diligenter  cavens,  Horatius  in 
sermonibus :   vade,  vale,  cave,  ne  titubes,  mandataque  frangas. 

"  The  first  editions  contain  no  mention  of  the  time  or  place  of  their  pub- 
lication. See  Le  Long.  ed.  Masch,  vol.  ii.  p.  258.  For  a  notice  of  a  copy 
in  the  royal  library  at  Berlin,  see  ibid.,  p.  67,  sqq.,  and  Berlin  Biblioth. 
vol.  i.  p.  169,  429. 

The  first  edition,  in  wliich  the  time  and  place  are  named,  was  published 
at  Mentz,  1462;  again,  at  Rome,  1471;  (reprinted  at  Niirnberg,  1475;) 
Niirnberg,  1471;  Piac.  1471,  1475;  Paris,  1475;  Naples,  1476;  Venice, 
147.5,  1476,  all  in  folio.  This  edition  has  often  been  reprinted.  Le  Long, 
1.  c.  p.  98.  [It  is  printed  without  a  title-page,  but  at  the  end  of  some 
copies  is  this  subscription:  Pns  hoc  opusculu  artificior  ad  inventione  im- 
pmendi  seu  characterizandi  absque  calami  ex  aracon  in  civitate  Mogunti 
sic  effigiatu  et  ad  eusebia  die  industria  per  JoK  em  fust  cive  et  Pelrum 
Schoifflier,   de  gerns'  heym.     Consummatus  anno  dni  M  CCCC  IXII.  &c.] 

The  following  are  more  critical  editions :  Bib.  Lat  emend,  per  Jlngelum 
de  Monte;  Uirici.  Bresc.  1496,  4to.,  [here  we  find  the  first  attempt  at  a 
criticism  on  the  printed  text  of  the  Vulgate ;  it  contains  many  errors ;  see 
Rosenmuller,  1.  c.  p.  204,  sqq.,]  reprinted  at  Venice,  1497,  Svo. ;  1501,  8vo. ; 
the  editions  of  J.  Parvus,  [Johannes  Petit,)  and  J.  Prevel,  Par.  1.504,  sqq., 
fol.,  with  the  emendations  of  ^4nrf.  Castellani ;  that  of  Jac.  Sacon,  Lug.  1506, 
sqq.,  Ibl.,  with  the  same  emendations  and  variants  ;  tliat  of  And.  Castellani, 
Venice,  1511,  fol.;  that  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  [the  text  of  which 
was  derived  from  several  old  MSS.  compared  with  critical  care,]  1517;  re- 
printed at  Niirnberg,  1527,  Svo. ;  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot;  the  editions  of 
CQlin<B,  Par.  152.5,  sqq.,  fol.;  those  of  Rudel,  Col.  1527,  1529,  fol.;  that  of 
Hittorp,  Col.  1530,  fol.;  those  oT Robert  Stephens,  Par.  1527,  1532,  1533,  fol., 
with  an  improved  text,  1540,  fol.,  with  variants  in  the  margin  ;  that  of  Ben- 
edictus,  (Benoist,)  Par.  1.541,  fol.  (ad  priscorum  probatissimorumque  exempla- 
rium  normam,  adhibita  interdum  fontium  autoritate ;)  that  of  Isid.  Clarius, 
Venice,  1542,  small  fol.  (ad  Hebraicam  et  Grcecam  veritatem  emendatum.) 
See  Le  Long,  1.  c.  p.  143 — 222. 


^  72.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  279 

prepared  when  he  was  quite  a  young  man,  was  a  won- 
der for  those  times.  It  was  distinguished  by  the  ele- 
gance of  its  typographical  execution,  and  by  the  improved 
character  of  its  text,  which  he  had  corrected  from  man- 
uscripts and  editions.  It  excited  the  indignation  of  the 
Paris  theologians,  who  condemned  it  to  be  burnt.  In 
the  next  edition,  there  were  still  further  improvements. 
He  collated  all  the  good  Latin  manuscripts  he  could 
find,  and  derived  important  aid  from  two  codices,  one  in 
the  library  of  St.  Germain  de  Pres,  the  other  in  that  of 
the  Abbey  St.  Dionysius.  His  fourth  edition,  of  1540, 
is  the  most  valuable  :  fourteen  of  the  best  and  most 
ancient  manuscripts,  and  three  editions,  were  collated 
to  furnish  the  text,  and  the  various  readings  were  printed 
in  the  margin.  Richard  Simon  calls  this  a  masterpiece 
among  editions  of  the  Bible.  His  next  edition,  of 
1545,  besides  the  Vulgate,  contained  a  new  version,  in 
better  Latin.  That  of  the  Old  Testament  was  made 
by  Leo  Juda,  Theodore  Bibliander,  and  Peter  Cholinus ; 
the  version  of  the  New  Testament  was  that  of  Erasmus, 
corrected  by  Rudolph  Gualter.  There  were  explana- 
tions in  the  margin,  collected  from  the  note-books  of 
the  pupils  of  Francis  Vatable.  His  sixth  edition  is 
merely  a  reprint  of  that  of  1540.  His  two  next  edi- 
tions contain  no  important  improvements,  except  the 
insertion  of  Pagninus's  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Beza's  of  the  New  Testament,  and  Badwell's  of  the 
Apocrypha." 

Benedict  attempted  to  restore  Jerome's  text.  He 
marked  with  obelisks  and  asterisks  the  passages  where 
the  Vulgate  added  to  the  original,  or  omitted  something 

"  [Rosenmuller,  1.  c.  p.  220,  sqq.     See,  also,  the  preface  (of  Peter  Cho- 
linus ?)  ad  Biblia  Lat.  Test.  V,  et  N.  &c. ;  Tiguri,  M.  D.  L.] 


280  I-ATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [^  72. 

from  it.      His  edition  has  little  merit  compared  with  the 
work  of  StejDhens." 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  the  renovated  study  of  the 
original  languages  of  the  Bible  had  disclosed  the  faults 
of  the  Vulgate ;  various  attempts  had  been  made  to 
remedy  its  defects.  Sometimes  it  was  used  as  the  basis 
for  a  better  work ;  sometimes  parts  of  it  were  im- 
proved ;  and  sometimes  a  new  version  was  used  in- 
stead of  it.  These  causes  produced  great  confusion 
in  the  church.  Therefore,  to  remedy  these  evils,  the 
council  of  Trent  decreed  that  the  Vulgate  alone  should 
be  publicly  used  in  the  church,  and  should  have  the 
same  authority  as  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals.] 

"  Moreover,"  says  the  decree  of  the  council,  in 
1546,  "  this  same  most  holy  council,  considering  that 
no  small  advantage  will  accrue  to  the  church  of  God,  if, 
from  all  the  Latin  editions  of  the  most  holy  books  which 
are  in  circulation,  it  should  designate  which  is  to  be 
held  as  authentic,  does  decree  and  declare  that  this 
ancient  and  Vulgate  edition,  Avhich  has  been  proved 
in  this  church  by  the  long  use  of  so  many  ages,  shall 
be  held  authentic  in  public  readings,  disputations,  preach- 
ings, and  expositions,  and  that  no  man  shall  dare  or 
presume  to  reject  it,  on  any  pretence  whatever."  Thus, 
by  this  decree,  the  admission  of  exegetical  inquiry  into 
the  public  doctrines  of  the  church  is  forever  prevented. 
[But  Jahn  contends,  and  apparently  with  justice,  that 
the  council  did  not  design  to  discourage  the  use  of  the 
Scriptures  in  the  original  tongues ;  that,  in  declaring 
the  Vulgate  authentic,  it  merely  pronounced  this  version 
free  from  important  errors,  which  would  render  it  unfit 

[See  JtosenmiUler,  1.  c,  p.  235,  sqq.] 


^72.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  281 

for  the  purpose  it  was  designed  to  serve ;  and,  in  fine, 
when  the  council  forbids  any  one  to  reject  the  Vulgate, 
its  meaning  is,  that  this  version  shall  be  preferred  to 
any  other  Latin  versio7i  in  common  use  at  that  time,  for 
the  Greek  Catholics  have  always  used  the  Septuagint ; 
the  Syrians,  the  Syriac  version ;  the  Arabians,  the  Ara- 
bic ;  and  Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant  theologians  use 
the  Greek  and  Hebrew  originals.  However,  Mohler,  a 
recent  and  very  able  Catholic  writer,  takes  a  less  liberal 
view  of  the  purport  of  this  decree." 

Private  editions,  issued  without  the  authority  or  sanc- 
tion of  the  chuich,  did  not  furnish  an  authentic  copy 
of  this  edition,  for  learned  Catholics  had  long  acknowl- 
edged the  numerous  mistakes  in  the  received  editions 
of  the  Vulgate.  Isidore  Clarius  had  pointed  out  eighty 
thousand  errors.  In  such  a  state  of  the  text,  men  nat- 
urally looked  to  the  council  itself,  or  to  the  holy  see,  for 
a  correct  edition  of  the  authentic  text ;  and,  therefore, 
the  council  decreed  and  ordained  that,  henceforth,  "  the 
Vulgate  edition  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  should  be 
printed  as  accurately  as  possible."* 

"  Concil.  Trid.  Sess.  IV".  Deer.  2:  Insuper  eadem  sacrosancta  Synodus 
considerans,  non  parum  utilitatis  accedere  posse  ecclesise  Dei,  si  ex  omni- 
bus Latinis  editionibus,  quee.  circumferuntur,  sacrorum  librorum,  qusenam  pro 
authentica  habenda  sit,  innotescat,  statuit  et  declarat,  ut  hsec  ipsa  vetus  et 
vulgata,  editio,  quae  longo  tot  sgeculorum  usu  in  ipsa  ecclesia  probata  est,  in 
publicis  lectionibus,  disputationibus,  preedicationibus  et  expositionibus  pro 
authentica  habeatur,  et  ut  nemo  i]lam  rejicere  quovis  prsetextu  audeat  vel 
prsesumat.  See  what  may  be  said  to  mitigate  the  severity  of  this  decree  in 
Mnrheinecke,  SysL  der  Kath.  vol.  ii.  p.  246. 

[See  Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  230,  sqq.  Mohler,  Symbolik  oder  Darstellung  der 
dogmatischen  Gegensiitze  der  Katholiken  und  Protestanten,  &c.  5th  ed. ; 
Mainz.  1838,  §  41  and  42.] 

''  Concil.  Trid.  1.  c. :  Ut  posthac  sacra  Scriptura,  potissimum  vero  haec  ipsa 
vetus  vulgata  editio,  quam  emendatissime  imprimatur. 

[The  council  itself  appointed  a  committee  of  six,  to  prepare  a  correct  edi- 
tion of  the  Vulgate,  who  commenced  the  work  assigned  them,  but  were 
VOL.  I.  o6 


282  LATIN    VERSIONS    Of^    THE    BIBLE.  [§  ^2. 

After  the  decree  of  this  council,  the  theologians  of 
the  university  of  Louvain,  seeing  the  confusion  that 
prevailed  in  the  editions  of  the  Vulgate  then  in  common 
use,  and  noticing,  also,  the  persecutions  to  which  Ste- 
phens was  exposed,  on  account  of  his  zeal  to  amend  it, 
undertook  themselves  to  correct  the  text  of  this  version. 
One  of  them,  John  Hentenius,  was  chosen  to  prepare 
a  new  and  more  correct  edition.  His  work  appeared  in 
1547."  He  says,  in  his  preface,]  "We  have  compared 
together,  not  only  the  copies  which  have  been  printed 
with  corrections,  but  about  twenty  others,  the  most 
modern  of  which  was  written  with  the  hand,  about  two 

hundred  years    ago, that,  from   the  collation  of 

these,  we  might  restore  the  old  and  Vulgate  edition  to 

its  genuineness  and  purity Accordingly,  we  have 

consulted  these  various  manuscripts,  and,  with  the  help 
of  Stephens's  codex,  [his  edition  of  1540,]  and  of  many 
others,  from  which  he  had  collected  variants  in  the  mar- 
gin, we  have  removed  from  the  text,  or  altered  some 
things,  guided  in  this  by  the  consent  of  the  greater 
part  of  our  authorities."* 

prevented  by  the  pope  from  proceeding,  until  the  cardinals  should  determine 

the  method  to  be  pursued.     Sarpi,  Hist,  du  Concile  de  Trent, traduit 

par  Amelot  de  la  Houssaie ;  Amst  1713,  liv.  ii.  p.  146,  sqq.     Hody,  p.  433.] 

"  It  bears  the  following  title :  Biblia  ad  vetustissima  Exemplaria  recens 
castig.,  &c.,  /.  Hentenii,  &c.  fol. 

*  Hentenius,  Praef.  ad  Bib. :  Ut  comparatis  undique  non  solum,  quae  cas- 
tigatius  excusa  erant,  exemplaribus,  verum  aliis  quoque  plus  minus  viginti, 

quorum  recentissimum  ante  ducentos  annos  manu  scriptum  erat ex 

horum  coUatione  restitueremus  veterem  et  vulgatam  editionem  sinceritati 

SUE  atque  puritati Itaque  acceptis  variis  exemplaribus  et  per  Rob. 

Stephani  codicem  plurimis  etiam  aliis,  quse  ille  suis  annotarat  marginibus, 
ex  complurium  consensu  nonnulla  e  textu  sustulimiis  aut  immutavimus.  See 
Le  Long,  1.  c.  p.  223,  sqq.  jR.  Simon,  Hist.  Crit.  des  Versions  du  N.  T. 
ch.  xi.  p.  135. 

This  edition  of  Hentenius  was  often  reprinted  —  at  Antwerp,  by  Steels, 
1559,  sqq. ;  at  Lyons,  by  RouilU,  1566,  sqq. ;  at  Venice,  by  Giuntas,  1571 


^  72.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  283 

[After  the  death  of  Hentenius,  the  theologians  at 
LoLivam  prepared  a  new  edition,  with  a  complete  col- 
lection of  various  readings.  It  was  prepared  by  Fran- 
cis Lucas  of  Briigge,  (Brugensis,)  Johan  ver  Meulen, 
(Molanus,)  Hunnaeus,  Reyner,  and  Harlem.  The  edi- 
tors gave,  in  the  margin  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
variations  of  the  Hebrew  original,  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrases, and  the  Septuagint ;  in  that  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, those  of  the  Greek  text  and  the  Syriac  version. 
They  also  made  use  of  the  citations  in  the  Fathers  and 
ecclesiastical  writers,  but  did  not  give  an  account  of 
the  age  and  condition  of  the  manuscripts  they  made 
use  of." 

As  corrected  editions  were  now  so  numerous,  and 
diverse  from  each  other,  it  naturally  became  the  duty 
of  the  church  to  prepare  an  authentic  edition  of  the 
sacred  text,  as  the  private  editions  did  not  satisfy  the 
exigencies  of  the  times.]  Accordingly,  the  pope  him- 
self prepared  an  authentic  edition.*  [Both  Pius  IV. 
and  V.  applied  their  hands  to  this  work ;  the  latter 
labored  upon  it  with  great  diligence.     He  collected  a 


sqq.  Biblia  sac,  per  Theologos  Lovan ;  Ant.,  1573,  8vo.  and  12mo.  3  vols. 
It  is  said  in  the  preface,  Imprimis  Vulgatse  editionis  Latin©  lectiones  va- 
rice,  in  MSS.  exemplaribus  deprehensae,  cum  exemplarium  in  quibus  inventa? 

sunt  numero  margini  adscriptse  sunt Cum  plurimfe  etiam  earum  lec- 

tionum,  qua3  vera  nostri  interpretis  videri  possent,  Hentenii  diligentiam 
prseterierint,  additae  sunt  nunc  paucse.  This  edition  was  reprinted,  1580, 
4to.  and  8vo.,  1583,  fol.  and  8vo.,  and  in  the  following  years. 

"  [Bib.  sac.  quid  in  hac  Editione  a  Theologis  Lov.  prsestitum  sit,  paulo 
post  indicatur;  Ant.,  ex  OfRc.  Ch.  Plantini,  1573,  8vo.  and  ]2mo.  3  vols. 
Rosenmiiller,  1.  c.  p.  245.] 

'  Biblia  sacra  vulgatae  editionis  tribus  tomis  distincta ;  Rom.  ex  Typogr. 
A  post.  Vatic.  1590,  fol.  Its  second  title  (on  an  engraved  page)  is.  Bib.  sac. 
ed.  ad  Concilii  Trident.  Prfescriptum  emend,  et  a  Sixto  V.  P.  M.  recogn.  et 
approbata.    Prasf.  Sixti  V.  editioni  prsefixa ;  Romse,  1589. 


284  LATIiN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [^72. 

body  of  learned  men,  to  make  a  critical  revision  of  the 
text.  He  was  himself  consulted  on  the  readings  to  be 
admitted,  and  overlooked  the  printed  sheets.  The  work 
was  finished  in  1589,  and  published  the  following  year.] 
In  the  preface,  (dated  1589,)  the  pope  says,  "We  have 
magnificently  erected  a  printing-office  in  our  palace  of 
the  Vatican,  and  deputed  a  congregation  of  cardinals  of 
the  holy  Roman  church,  and  a  distinguished  college  of 
the  most  learned  men,  assembled  from  almost  all  nations 
of  Christendom,  and  from  the  most  celebrated  universi- 
ties, to  take  charge  of  it,  who  have  been  recompensed 
with  ample  and  generous  salaries,  —  in  order  that  an 
amended  edition  of  the  Bible  might  be  printed  in  it. 
And,  that  this  business  might  be  performed  more  accu- 
rately, with  our  own  hands  we  have  corrected  the  faults 
that  occurred  in  printing ;  and  those  things  which  were, 
or  might  easily  be,  confounded,  we  have  distinguished 
by  an  interval  between  them,  and  by  larger  notes  and 

interpunction But  we  wish  this  to  be  understood 

by  all  men,  that  these,  our  labors  and  watchings,  were 
never  designed  for  this  end,  that  a  new  translation  might 
come  to  light,  but  that  the  ancient  Vulgate  might  be 
restored  to  its  primitive  purity,  as  it  first  proceeded  from 
the  hand  and  pen  of  its  translator.  But,  in  this  diligent 
investigation  of  the  genuine  text,  it  appears  sufficiently 
evident  amongst  all,  that  no  argument  is  more  certain 
and  solid,  than  the  fidelity  of  the  ancient  and  approved 
Latin  codices,  both  written  and  printed,  which  we  have 
taken  pains  to  collect  from  various  libraries.  Accord- 
ingly, wherever  the  most  ancient  and  correct  copies  are 
found  to  agree,  by  the  wisest  rule  we  have  decreed  that 
these  readings  should  be  retained,  as  the  words  of  the 
primitive    text.      Accordingly,   by   this    our   ordinance, 


§  72.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  285 

which  is  to  endure  forever,  we  decree  and  declare  that 
the  Latin  Vulgate  edition  of  the  sacred  pages  of  both 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which  has  been  received 
as  authentic  by  the  council  of  Trent,  is,  without  any 
doubt  or  controversy,  to  be  esteemed  to  be  the  very  text 
which  we  now  amend  and  publish."" 

[The  pontiff',  relying  on  his  infallibility  in  matters 
of  criticism  no  less  than  in  articles  of  faith,  proceeded 
to  decree  "  that  if  any  inquisitor  or  bishop  should  de- 
liver to  a  printer,  to  be  published,  a  copy  differing  in 
any  manner  from  this  now  printed  in  the  Vatican  press, 
or  should,  by  his  seal  or  signature,  approve  any  printed 
copy  which  differed  from  this,  —  to  him,  if  he  were 
alive,  —  even  though  he  were  resplendent  with  the  dig- 
nity of  an  archbishop,  primate,  patriarch,  or  any  other 

"  Novam  interea  Typographiam  in  Apostolico  Vaticano  Palatio  nostro  ad 
id  potissimum  magnifice  exstruximus,  atque  ad  ejus  curam  Congregationem 
aliquot  sancte  Romanae  ecclesice  Cardinalium  et  insigne  Collegium  doctissi- 
morum  virorum  fere  ex  omnibus  christian!  orbis  nationibus  et  celeberrimis 
studiorum  generalium  universitatibus,  amplis  opulentisque  reditibus  dona- 
tum,  deputavimus,  ut  in  ea  emendatum  jam  Bibliorum  volumen  excuderetur: 
eaque  res  quo  magis  incorrupte  perficeretur,  nostra  nos  ipsi  manu  correxi- 
mus,  si  qua  prelo  vitia  obrepserant,  et  quas  confusa  aut  facile  confundi  posse 
videbantur,  ea  intervallo  scriptune  ac  majoribus  notis  et  interpunctione  dis- 

tinximus illud  sane  omnibus  certum  atque  exploratum  esse  volumus, 

nostros  hos  labores  ac  vigilias  nunquam  eo  spectasse,  ut  nova  editio  in  luceni 
exeat,  sed  ut  Vulgata  vetus  —  emendatissima  prlstincBque  sues  piintati,  gualis 
prhnum  ab  ipsius  interpretis  manu  styloque  prodierat,  restituta  imprimatur. 
In  hac  autem  germani  textus  pervestigatione,  satis  perspicue  inter  omnes 
constat,  nullum  argumentum  esse  certius  acjirmius,  quam  antiquorum  proba- 
torumque  codicum  Lalinorum fidevi,  quos  tarn  impresses,  quam  manuscriptos 
ex  Bibliothecis  variis  conquirendos  curavimus.  In  quacunque  igiturlectiono 
plures  vetmtiores  atque  emendatiores  libri  consentire  reperti  sunt,  ex  jure 
optimo,  tanquam  primogeniti  textus  verba,  aut  his  maxime  finitima,  retinenda 

decrevimus.     Igitur hac  nostra  perpetuo  valitura  constitutione  statui- 

mus  ac  declaramus,  earn  Vulgatam  sacrae,  tam  Vet  quam  N.  Testamenti 
paginse  Latinam  editionem,  quas  pro  authentica  a  Concilio  Trid.  recepta  est, 
sine  ulla  dubitatione  aut  controversia  censendam  esse  banc  ipsam,  quam 
nunc  emendatam  —  evulgamus. 


286  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [%  "72. 

or  greater  dignity,  —  it  is  prohibited  to  enter  any  church ; 
but  if  he  is  of  an  inferior  rank,  he  incurs  the  sentence 

of  excommunication  by  that  very  act Therefore 

it  is  unlawful  for  any  man  to  infringe  on  the  letter  of 

our  statute    declaration, or,   with    presumptuous 

daring,  to  counteract  it.  But,  if  any  shall  designedly 
presume  to  do  this,  let  him  know  that  he  will  incur  the 
indignation  of  Almighty  God,  and  of  the  blessed  Peter 
and  Paul,  his  apostles."" 

This  edition  contained  numerous  errors ;  many  printed 
passages,  especially  in  the  New  Testament,  were  cov- 
ered over  with  small  slips  of  paper,  on  which  corrections 
were  printed ;  others  were  erased,  or  merely  altered 
with  a  pen,  and  the  alterations  were  not  the  same  in 
all  the  copies,  —  so  carelessly  was  the  work  prepared 
and  corrected  by  the  papal  hand.* 

Pope  Sixtus  died  the  year  in  which  his  edition  ap- 
peared. It  contained  so  many  errors,  that  his  successor. 
Urban  VII.,  attempted  to  suppress  it,  and  substitute 
another  edition  in  its  place.  Gregory  XIV.,  the  suc- 
cessor of  Urban,  who  held  his  office  but  twelve  days, 
assembled  many  learned  men  to  make  another  revision 
of  the  Vulgate :  among  these  were  Cardinals  Colonna 
and  Alanus,  besides  such  scholars  as  Robert  Bellarmine, 
Morinus,  Flaminius  Nobilius,  Laelius,  Balverda,  and 
Agelli."      They  soon  prepared  a  new  revision,   which 

[Prffif.  ad  Ed.  Sixti  V.,  1.  c,  as  quoted  in  Hody,  1.  c] 

^  [Hug,  §  127.] 

'  [Rosenmidkr,  1.  c.  p.  254,  sqq.  Le  Long,  ed.  Masch,  pt.  ii.  vol.  iii. 
p.  245.  It  seems  the  whole  Bible,  both  Old  and  New  Testament,  was  re- 
vised by  these  scholars  in  nineiem  days,  quod  vix  credibile  videbatur,  as  the 
account  well  says.  Rosenmiiller,  1.  c.  p.  255,  note.  It  seems  /.  B.  Tafuri 
found  a  manuscript  list  of  tlie  members  of  this  body  collected  to  prepare  a 
new  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  on  the  margin  of  a  copy  of  Clement's  edition. 
Calogier  published  it  in  his  Opuscoli  Scientifiche.     It  was  again  published 


'^  72.]  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  287 

was  issued  in  1592."  There  were  great  difficulties  in 
publishing  the  new  edition.  It  could  not  agree  with 
that  of  Sixtus  V.,  for  the  faults* of  that  edition  were  as 
notorious  as  ludicrous.  If  it  differed  from  that,  the 
papal  infallibility  was  exposed  to  derision.  Bellarmine 
luckily  hit  upon  a  plan  to  correct  the  errors,  and  save 
the  infallibility  of  the  pontiff.  All  the  blame  was  laid 
upon  the  printer.  The  plan  was  worthy  of  a  Jesuit,  and 
the  chief  of  the  Louvain  divines,  ^e  was  soon  made 
a  cardinal,  and  subsequently  an  archbishop.] 

In  Bellarmine's  preface  to  this  edition,  it  is  said, 
"  Sixtus  V.  commanded  the  work  thus  finished  to  be 
put  to  the  press ;  and  when  it  was  printed,  and  ready 
for  publication,  that  same  pontiff,  perceiving  that  many 
errors  had  crept  into  the  Holy  Bible,  through  fault  of 

the  press, declared  and  decreed  that  the  whole 

edition  should  be  recalled ;  but  he  was  unable  to  ac- 
complish this,  being  prevented  by  death.  Gregory  XIV., 
who  had  succeeded  Sixtus  in  the  pontificate,  —  after  the 
twelve  days'  administration  of  Urban  VII.,  —  determined 

to  follow  up  and  finish  his  plan But  he,  and  his 

successor.  Innocent  IX.,  being  in  a  short  time  taken 
from  this  life,  the  work  on  which  Sixtus  was  intent 
was  at  last  finished,  in  the  beginning  of  the  pontificate 
of  Clement  VIII.  And  although,  in  this  revision  of  the 
Bible,  no  moderate  labor  was  applied  in  comparing  man- 
uscripts, the  Hebrew  and  Greek  sources,  and  the  com- 

in  the  Unchuldigen  Nachrichten  for  1749,  p.  318.  The  congregation 
assembled  at  Zagarola,  a  little  town  in  the  papal  dominions.  In  1723, 
Rospigliosi,  the  present  possessor  of  the  town,  and  a  descendant  of  the 
family  of  Pope  Clement  VIII.,  erected  a  monument  there  containing  the 
names  of  all  who  had  a  hand  in  that  edition.  See  Rosenmuller,  1.  c.  p.  255, 
note.] 

"  It  bears  the  following  title :  Biblia  Sacra  Vulgatas  Editionis  Sixti  V. 
Pont.  Max.  Jussu  recognita  et  edita,  &c.,  fol. 


288  LATIN    VERSIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [^"72. 

mentaries  of  the  Fathers,  nevertheless,  in  this  edition 
now  published,  some  things  are  designedly  changed, 
and  others,  which  seem  to  require  change,  are  design- 
edly left  unaltered.""  [This  edition  contains  neither 
the  summaries  of  the  contents  of  chapters,  the  parallel 
passages,  nor  the  various  readings.  However,  the  pref- 
ace promises  an  edition  furnished  with  these  aids. 
These  two  papal  editions,  differing  so  widely  from  each 
other,  have  furnished  occasion  for  strong  arguments  and 
biting  jests  against  the  infallibility  of  the  pope.]* 


"  In  multis  magnisqiie  beneficiis,  etc.  Sixtus  V.  opus  tandem  con- 
fectum  typis  mandari  jussit-  Quod  cum  jam  esset  excusum  et  ut  in  lucem 
emitteretur,  idem  Pontifex  operam  daret,  animadvertens  non  pauca  in  sacra 
Biblia  preli  vitio  iiTepsisse  —  totum  opus  sub  incudem  revocandum  censuit 
atque  decrevit.  Idque  cum  morte  preeventus  prsestare  non  potuisset,  Gregor. 
XIV.,  qui  post  Urbani  VII.  duodecim  dierum  Pontificatum  Sixto  successerat, 
ejus  animi  intentionem  exsecutus  perficere  aggressus  est.  —  Sed  eo  quoque, 
et  qui  illi  successit,  Innocentio  IX.  brevissimo  tempore  de  hac  luce  sub- 
tractis,  tandem  sub  initium  Pontificatus  dementis  VIII.  opus,  in  quod  Sixtus 
V.  intenderat,  perfectum  est.  Et  vero  quamvis  in  hac  Bibliorum  recogni- 
tione  in  codicibus  MSS.,  HebrrEis  Grcedsque  fontihus  et  ipsis  veterum  pa- 
trum  commentariis  conferendis  non  mediocre  studium  adhibitum  fuerit,  in 
hac  tamen  pervulgata  editione  sicut  nonnuUa  de  consulto  mutata,  ita  etiam 
alia,  qucB  mutanda  videbantur,  consulto  immutata  relida  sunt. 

Clemens  P.  octavus  ad  perpetuam  rei  memoriam :  Cum  sacrorum  Biblio- 
rum Vulgatje  editionis  textus  —  restitutus  et  mendis  repurgatus  ex  nostra 
Typographia  Vat,  in  lucem  prodeat :  Nos,  ut  in  posterum  idem  textus  in- 
corruptus,  ut  decet,  conservetur,  opportune  providere  volentes,  etc.  Dat 
RomfE,  1592. 

'  See  Bellum  Papale,  sive  Concordia  discors  Sixti  V.  et  dementis  VIII. 
circa  Hieronymianam  Edit,  Auct.  Thoma  James,&ic. ;  Lond.  1600, 4to.,  1678, 
8vo.  [See  also  his  Treatise  of  the  Corruptions  of  Scripture,  Councils,  and 
Fathers,  by  the  Prelates,  Pastors,  and  Pillars  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  «&,c. ; 
Lond.  1688,  8vo.]  Hist,  de  la  Bible  de  Sixte  V,,  par  Prosp.  Marchand,  in 
Schelhom,  Amcenitatt.  Lit.  vol.  iv.  p.  433,  sqq.  Hody,  p.  494,  sqq.,  who 
gives  a  specimen  of  the  difference  of  the  two  editions,  p.  503.  E.  Simon, 
Hist.  crit.  des  Vers,  du  N.  T.  p.  526,  sqq.  Rosenmiiller,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  249, 
sqq.,  267,  sqq.     Hug,  §  127—129. 

[Appendix,  art.  G.] 

This  recension  of  Clement  was  reprinted  in  1593,  4to.,  in  1598,  8vo.    The 


§73.]  DESCENDANTS    OF    THE    VULGATE.  289 

This  is  the  basis  of  all  subsequent  editions  of  the 
Vulgate."  [At  the  present  time,  the  text  of  the  Vul- 
gate consists  of  passages  from  the  old  Latin  version, 
before  Jerome ;  from  his  improved  edition  of  that  ver- 
sion ;  and  from  his  new  version  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
The  apocryphal  books  of  Baruch,  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon, and  Ecclesiasticus,  and  the  first  and  second  of 
Maccabees,  are  from  the  old  Latin  version.  The  Psalms 
are  from  Jerome's  improved  version,  called  Psalterium 
Gallicanum,  and  all  the  other  books  from  his  own 
translation  of  the  Hebrew.  But,  in  all  these,  we  must 
expect  to  find  the  text  very  much  changed.]* 

§73. 

II.    DESCENDANTS  OF  THE   VULGATE. 
1.     The  Anglo-Saxon  Version. 

There  is  still  extant,  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  language,  a 
version  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  book  of  Joshua, 
made  by  the  Abbot  iElfric,  in  the  tenth  century."     It 

last  edition  contains  a  catalogue  of  the  places  to  be  corrected  —  one  for  this 
edition,  one  for  that  of  1592,  and  a  third  for  that  of  1593. 

"  Editions.  —  By  Plantin  :  Ant.  1599, 4to.  and  8vo.,  reprinted  nine  times  ; 
the  last,  1650,  4to.  By  Leander  Van  Ess,  in  three  parts,  Tiib.  1822 — 1824, 
8vo. ;  editio  nova  auct.  Pont  Max.  Leonis  XII.,  Frankfort,  1826, 8vo.  See,  on 
this  subject,  Leander  Van  Ess,  Pragmatische  krit.  Geschichte  der  Vulgata  in 
Allgem.  und  zunachst  inBezeich.  auf  das  Tridentische  Decret. ;  Tiib.  1824. 
[See  Censura  Vulgatee  atque  a  Tridentinis  canonizatse  Versionis  quinque 
Lib.  Mosis,  &c.  Auct.  Sixtinus  Amavia ;  Franc.  1620,  4to.,  and  his  Anti- 
barbarus  Biblicus,  &c.;  Amst  1628,  8vo.,  and  1656,  4to.] 

*  [Eichhorn,  §  238,  a.    Jahn,  p.  239—241.] 

'  Heptateuchus,  Liber  Job,  et  Evang.  Nicodemi,  Anglo-Saxonice.  Histo- 
rite  Judith  Fragm.  Dano-Saxonice,  ed.  ex  MSS.  Codd.  Ewd.  Thioaites; 
Oxon.  1698,  8vo.  [See  the  letter  of  Archbishop  M^olson  to  Mr.  Thwaites, 
in  Mcolson's  Letters,  vol.  i.  p.  Ill,  sqq.] 

VOL.  I.  37 


290         DESCENDANTS  OF  THE  VULGATE.      [^'73. 

has  been  reckoned  among  the  descendants  of  the  Alex- 
andrian version.''  But,  after  a  more  accurate  compari- 
son with  the  sources,  it  is  found  to  belong  to  the  family 
of  the  Latin  Vulgate.*  To  the  same  source  belongs  the 
Anglo-Saxon  translation  of  the  Psalter,  which  is  the 
work  of  an  unknown  author,  and  probably  from  a  later 
date.*"  iElfric,  speaking  of  his  manner  of  translating, 
says,  "  which  I  briefly,  after  my  manner,  translated 
into  English."'^ 

[Professor  Alter  concludes  jElfric  translated  from  the 
Latin,  and  not  the  Greek,  from  the  following  consid- 
erations, namely:  L  It  is  not  probable  a  monk  in 
England,  in  that  age,  would  be  able  to  read  the  Septua- 
gint  well  enough  to  translate  from  it  in  preference  to 
the  Latin  Vulgate.  2.  This  version  contains  readings 
peculiar  to  the  Vulgate  and  its  descendants.  For  ex- 
ample. Gen.  viii.  4,  the  Vulgate  reads,  super  monies 
Armenice ;  the  Septuagint,  with  its  descendants,  super 
onontes  Ararat,  which  was  a  province  of  Armenia.  The 
Anglo-Saxon  version  reads,  ofer  tha  Muntas  Armenies 
Landes.  Again,  Deut.  x.  3,  the  Vulgate  has,  de  lignis 
Setim;  the  Septuagint,  ix  ^vlcov  aariTiTcov ;  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  of  Sethim  Treoicum." 

"  Eichkorn,  §  318,  c.     Bertholdt,  p.  565. 

''  Pfannkiiche,  Contributions  to  a  more  accurate  Knowledge  of  the  printed 
Anglo-Saxon  Versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  Gottingen  Bibliothek 
dcr  neuest.  Theol.  Lit.  vol.  iii.  p.  616,  sqq.  Alter,  in  Pauhis,  Memorabil.  vol. 
vi.  p.  190,  vol.  viii.  p.  194,  sqq. 

Psalterium  Davidis  Latino-Sax.  Vetus,  ed.  Jo.  Spehnan  ;  Lond.  1640, 4to. 

**  See  A  Saxon  Treatise  concerning  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  MTitten 
about  the  Time  of  King  Edgar,  by  ^Ifricus  Abbas,  thought  to  be  the  same 
that  was  afterwards  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  &c.,  now  first  published  by 
JVilL  Ulsle,  of  fVillurgham ;  Lond.  1623,  4to.  (or  Diverse  Ancient  Monu- 
ments, in  the  Saxon  Tongue,  &-c. ;  Lond.  1638,  4to.)  p.  22.  [See  Home, 
Bib.  App.  pt  L  ch.  i.  sect  v.  §  4.] 

'  [Mer,  1.  c,  v/here  see  other  instances  of  agreement  between  the  Vul- 


^74.]       DESCENDANTS  OF  THE  VULGATE.        291 

The  version  of  ^Elfric  was  not  the  earliest  version  in 
the  Anglo-Saxon  tongue.  The  Psalter  was  translated 
by  Adhelm,  the  first  bishop  of  Sherborn,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  eighth  century.  At  his  request,  Egbert,  or 
Eadfrid,  soon  after  translated  the  four  Gospels."  King 
Alfred  undertook  to  render  the  Psalms  into  Anglo- 
Saxon,  but  died  in  900,  before  the  work  was  complete. 
Besides  the  Pentateuch  and  book  of  Joshua,  iElfric 
translated,  also,  Judith,  Esther,  Maccabees,  and  part  of 
the  Kings. 

This  version  is  of  little  critical  value.  It  may,  per- 
haps, aid  in  criticising  the  text  of  the  Vulgate,  since  it 
contributes  something  to  the  history  of  its  text  at  that 
period.  However,  but  little  use  has  hitherto  been  made 
of  it.  Doctor  Mill  collected  various  readings  of  the 
New  Testament  from  this  source.]  * 


'!='- 


§  74. 
2.    Arabic  and  Persian  Translations  of  the  Vulgat. 

For  the  use  of  the  Roman  Christians  in  the  East,  the 
Bible  has  frequently  been  translated  from  the  Vulgate 
into  the  Arabic,  and  more  seldom  into  the  Persian. 

[An  Arabic  translation  from  the  Vulgate  was  published 

gate  and  Anglo-Saxon  version.  See  Lingard,  Antiquities  of  tlie  Anglo- 
Saxon  Church,  Philad.,  Appendix,  R.,  for  some  infoiination  respecting  the 
Latin  versions  used  by  the  Anglo-Saxons,  and  Turner,  Hist.  Ang.  Sax. 
book  V.  ch.  iii.] 

"  [A  MS.  of  this  version  is  still  preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  ^stle, 
Origin  and  Progress  of  Writing,  (Lond.  p.  100,  sqq.,)  who  gives  a  speci- 
men of  it] 

''  [See  Johnson,  Account  of  English  Translations  of  the  Bible,  in  Watson^s 
Tracts,  vol.  iii.  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  ii.  p.  159,  sqq.,  637.  Home,  1.  c, 
pt.  i.  ch.  iii.  sect,  iii.] 


292         DESCENDANTS  OF  THE  VULGATE.     [^  74. 

at  Rome  in  1671."  It  was  prepared  at  the  request  of 
some  of  the  Oriental  clergy  of  high  rank.  The  work  was 
executed  by  Sergius  Risius,  a  Maronite,  and  archbishop 
of  Damascus,  with  the  assistance  of  Sciolac  Hesronita 
and  Sionita,  other  Maronites,  and  of  Cappella  Malvasia, 
Guadagnolo,  Maracci,  Abraham  Ecchellensis,  and  others. 
Great  pains  were  taken  to  make  the  Arabic  version  con- 
form to  the  Vulgate.*  However,  in  the  Psalms,  tlie 
Melchite  version  lies  at  the  basis,  and  is  adopted  with 
but  few  alterations.  The  version  is  of  no  value  for 
critical  or  exegetical  purposes;  it  is  so  full  of  barbarisms 
and  Latinisms  that  it  failed  of  its  purpose  in  the  East, 
and  the  missionaries  who  brought  it  were  accused  of 
corrupting  the  Scriptures.]" 

There  are   two  manuscript  versions  of  the  Vulgate 
Psalter  in  Persian,  mentioned  by  Walton.'' 

"  Biblia  Sacra  Arabica,  sac.  Congregationis  de  propaganda  Fide  jussu 
edita  ad  Usum  Eccles.  Orientalium,  additis  e  reg.  Bibliis  Lat  Vulg. ;  Rom., 
&c.,  1671,  3  vols,  fol.:  reprinted  by  the  Bible  Society;  Lond.  1822,  8vo. 
A  part  of  the  Old  Testament  was  published  at  Rome,  1752,  (1753?)  small 
folio,  in  the  press  of  Malchus  Rutilius.  See  C.  Aurivill.  Diss,  de  rariori 
quadam  Ed.  Vers.  Arab,  Sac.  Bib.,  (Upsal,  1776,)  in  his  Dissert  ed. 
Michaelis,  No.  xiii.  p.  308.  See  Schdling,  On  the  Arabic  Editions  of  the 
Bible,  in  1752,  in  Eichhorn^s  Report,  vol.  x.  p.  154.  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol. 
xii.  p.  112,  vol.  xviii.  p.  179,  vol.  xx.  p.  131,  sqq.  On  other  MS.  versions,  see 
.Mlej;  Bib.  krit.  Reise,  p.  177,  sqq. 

'  [R.  Simon,  Lettres  Choisies,  vol.  ii.  p.  165.  Le  Long,  ed.  Masch,  vol.  ii. 
p.  115,  and  JVazari,  II  Giornale  de  Letterati,  (Rom.  1673,)  cited  in  Rosen- 
muller,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  56,  sqq.] 

[See  Doderlein,  On  the   Arabic  Psalters,   in  Eichhorn's  Repei-t  vol 
iv,.  p.  83,  sqq.] 

"^  Walton,  Prol.  xvi.  8, 


293 


BOOK    III. 


ON   THE   CRITICISM   OF   THE   TEXT. 


^75. 

GENERAL  VIEW   OF  THE   SUBJECT   OF  THIS  BOOK. 

By  the  term  text,  in  its  more  rigorous  sense,  is  to  be 
understood  whatever  the  author  has  written,  or  caused 
to  be  written,  as  an  expression  of  his  thoughts.  In 
treating  of  the  text,  then,  the  writing  characters  used 
by  the  author,  and,  in  general,  whatever  relates  to  the 
ancient  manner  of  writing,  are  to  be  considered  but  in- 
directly ;  and  what  relates  to  the  division  of  the  work 
into  chapters  and  verses,  and  its  interpunction,  lies  still 
farther  from  the  subject,  especially  when  this  division 
and  interpunction  did  not  proceed  from  the  author  him- 
self. Both  of  these  subjects  may  be  included  and 
treated  of  under  the  head  of  external  form  of  the  text. 

Now,  since  the  question  relates  to  the  genuineness 
and  accuracy  of  the  text,  and  the  restoration  thereof  to 
its  original  purity,  we  must,  therefore,  in  the  first  place, 
be  able  to  understand  the  alterations  it  has  undergone, 
or  its  history ;  and  next,  the  means  that  are  employed  in 
criticism  to  purify  and  restore  it,  and  also  the  method 
which  we  are  to  follow  in  this  work. 


294  HISTORY    OF    THE    FORM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [§ '^6. 

Accordingly,  this  book  on  the  criticism  of  the  text  is 
separated  into  two  divisions,  namely,  — 

I.  The  History  of  the  Text;  and, 

II.  The  Theonj  of  Criticism." 


DIVISION    1. 

HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT, 


CHAPTER    I. 
HISTORY  OF  THE  EXTERNAL  FORM  OF  THE  TEXT. 

PRELIMINARY  REMARKS   ON  HEBREW   PALAEOGRAPHY. 

In  this  place  it  must  be  taken  for  granted,  without 
entering  into  the  argument,  that,  before  the  exile,  the 
old  Hebrew  writing  characters  —  such  as  are  still  found 
on  the  coins  of  the  Maccabees  —  were  in  use  ;  but  that, 
after  that  period,  they  were  supplanted  by  a  sort  of 
Aramean  characters,  which,  in  the  hands  of  the  calig- 
raphists,  were  formed  into  the  present  square  letters ; 
that  both  of  these  were  destitute  of  vowels  and  of  dia- 
critical marks  ;  that  the  division  of  the  written  text  into 
its  separate  words  was  not  observed  throughout,  though 
it  was  not  entirely  neglected.* 

"  [I  have  given  rather  a  paraphrase  than  a  close  translation  of  this 
section.] 

''  See  De  Wette,  Heb.  Jiid.  Archaologie,  §  278,  sqq.,  and  the  writers  there 


§76.J    HISTORY  OF  THE  FORM  OF  THE  TEXT.     295 

["  According  to  a  Jewish  tradition,  before  the  exile, 
the  Jews  made  use  of  the  writing  characters  employed 
by  the  Samaritans ;  but,  to  judge  from  what  is  alleged 
to  be  the  most  ancient  form  of  the  letter  thau,  and 
from  the  letters  on  the  Maccabaic  coins,  only  this  can 
be  true,  —  that  the  present  Samaritan  character  is  more 
closely  related  to  the  ancient  Hebrew  than  are  the 
square  letters.  Still  they  are  not  the  original  charac- 
ters, for  the  square  letters  stand  in  the  closest  affinity 
with  the  Palmyrene,  which  agree  very  nearly  with  the 
old  Aramean.  Therefore  it  is  probable  that,  a  long 
time  after  the  exile,  the  square  letters  were  formed 
under  the  influence  of  the  Aramean,  and,  perhaps,  out 
of  the  Palmyrene  characters ;  and,  since  they  are  ob- 
viously formed  with  a  view  to  beauty  of  writing,  it  is 
probable  that  they  are  the  result  of  the  holy  art  of 
writing  which  came  into  use  among  the  Jews  through 
their  zeal  for  their  law."]" 

referred  to.  Compare  with  that,  Hupfeld,  Elucidation  of  some  obscure 
Passages  in  the  History  of  the  Text  of  the  O.  T.,  in  Theol.  Stud,  und  Krit. 
for  1830,  pt.  2 — 4.     Hcivernik,  vol.  i.  pt  i.  p.  285. 

**  [Origen,  ad  Ez.  ix.  4,  says  the  letter  thau  had  formerly  the  figure  of  a 
cross.  Jerome  follows  Origen  in  this.  Prolog.  Galeat.  0pp.  i.  p.  317.  On 
the  influence  of  Ezra  in  changing  the  writing  character,  see  Eichhom, 
§  67.    Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xxii.  p.  118. 

See,  on  this  subject,  Kopp.,  Bildern  und  Schriften  der  Vorzeit.  §  101,  sqq. 
Eichhom,  §  66.  Whiston,  Tentamen  restaurandi  gen.  Textum  V.  T.  p.  126. 
Bauer,  Grit  sac.  V.  T.  §  10 — 12.     Gesenius,  Com.  de  Pent.  Sam. 

For  the  opinion  that  the  square  letters  were  the  original  characters,  see 
Joa.  Buxtorf,  Dissert.  Philol.  Theol.  iv.  de  Lit  Heb.  Antiq.  No.  4.  Schick- 
ard,  Bechinath  Happeruschim,  p.  82.  Hottinger,  Exercit.  antimorin.  p.  33, 
sqq.  Stcph.  Morinus,  De  Lingua  primseva,  ii.  10,  p.  317.  Wasmuth,  Vind. 
Hebr.  Script,  p.  35,  sqq.  Loescher,  De  Causis  Ling.  Heb.  p.  216.  Light- 
foot,  on  Matt.  V.  18.  Pfeiffer,  Crit.  sac.  p.  72.  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p. 
228,  sqq. 

On  the  opinion  that  the  Samaritan  was  the  original,  see  Jo.  Morinus,  Ex- 
ercit. ad  Pent  Sam.  ii.  1,  §  6,  p.  91,  sqq.  Jos.  Sccdiger,  De  Emend.  Temp, 
p.  185.    Animad.  ad  Chronicon.  Eusebii,  p.  62,  103.    /*.  Vossius,  Diss,  de 


296     HISTORY  OF  THE  FORM  OF  THE  TEXT.    [^77. 

§  77. 

DIVISION   OF  THE   TEXT. 
1.    Division  into  Larger  and  Smaller  Passages. 

The  text  of  the  Pentateuch  is  divided  into  six  hun- 
dred and  sixty-nine  paragraphs,  called  Parashes,'  (^'\'^'^yi, 
in  singular  ^'^^^,  that  is,  separation,  division.)  Those 
Parashes  which  begin  with  a  break  in  the  line,  and 
those  with  a  vacant  space  between  the  lines,  (J^Pps  , 
s^m^^s ,)  are  called  open,  (nimnp ,)  and  shut,  (ni>2^n? ,)  or 
bound,  (ni3^?:D,  that  is,  leaning  upon,)  and  are  distin- 
guished in  manuscripts  and  editions  by  the  initial  letters 
£3  and  D.  The  open  Parashes  seem  to  serve  to  indi- 
cate the  different  contents  of  the  text,  or  the  greater 
divisions ;  the  shut,  to  denote  smaller  divisions." 

These  Parashes  are  mentioned  in  the  Mishna,  and  in 
the  Gemara.  The  difference  between  the  open  and  shut 
is  mentioned  among  the  essentials  of  sacred  orthography.* 

LXX.,  c.  29.  De  Orac.  Sibyll.  c.  15.  Lud.  Cappellus,  Arcanum  Punct  i.  6. 
Walton,  Prol.  iii.  33.  Jos.  Dobrowsky,  De  Antiq.  Heb.  Charact ;  and  others 
referred  to  by  Pfeiffer  and  Carpzov,  cited  in  De  JVette,  1.  c.   See  Appendix,  D.] 

"  Vitringa,  Syn.  Vet.  p.  965.  Tlie  minor  segments  of  the  Law  of  Moses 
did  not  formerly  serve  to  assist  tlie  reading  of  the  Law,  but  to  distinguish 
the  contents.  Hupfeld,  Beleuchtung  dunkler  Stellen  der  A.  T.  Text 
Geschichte,  in  Stud,  und  Krit.  for  1837,  Heft.  4,  whom  we  follow  in  this, 
cites,  as  a  proof,  the  genealogies.  Gen.  v.  xi. ;  the  history  of  the  flood,  vi. — 
IX. ;  the  collection  of  the  laws,  Ex.  xx.,  xxi. — xxiii.  Lev.  xviii.  Num. 
xxix.  Dent,  v.,  xxii. — xxv. ;  the  catalogues,  Ex.  xl.  Num.  xxvi.  Jos. 
XV.  Jud.  i.  2  Sam.  xxii.  1  Kings  iv. ;  the  blessings  and  curses.  Num. 
vi.  Deut.  xxvii.  But  this  will  not  always  apply  to  the  present  text.  It 
will  to  Ex.  XX.  verse  8,  which  begins  with  a  a  ;  but  not  to  Gen.  v.,  which  be- 
gins with  a  0 ;  and  vi.  1 — 4,  is  only  separated  from  it  by  a  c.  So  Ex.  xxi. 
• — ^xxiii.,  where  there  are  several  £. 

^  Taan.  iv.  3.  Berach.  ii.  2.  Tarn.  v.  i.  Menach.  iii.  7.  Schabb.  Bab. 
p.  103,  c.  2.    Megill.  Hieros.  p.  71,  c.  2. 


§  77.]    HISTORY  OF  THE  FORM  OF  THE  TEXT.     297 

They  are  referred  back  to  Moses  as  their  author,"  and 
cited  as  Parash  "Balaam,"  or  "  Balak,"  "  Sotah," 
"  the  Red  Cow,"  &c.  They  probably  began  in  the 
earliest  times,  when  their  sacred  Scriptures  were  read 
in  public.  A  similar  division  was  made  in  the  Prophets 
and  Hagiographa.* 

The  V^'i>  of  the  Samaritans,"  and  the  Ktxpalaia,  the 
Capitula,  tituli,  and  breves  of  the  versions,  are  similar  to 
these.  They  are  often  marked,  in  manuscripts,  by 
spaces  between  the  lines  and  large  initial  letters.  The 
Capitula  of  Jerome  seem  to  agree  with  the  Parashes, 
for  he  appeals  to  the  Hebrew  divisions.  In  Mich, 
vi.  9,  he  says,  "  In  the  Hebrew,  this  is  the  beginning 
of  the  next  chapter;  in  the  Septuagint,  it  is  the  end  of 
the  last."  They  actually  agree  together.  In  Sophon. 
iii.  14,  he  says,  "  It  need  not  seem  surprising  that  the 
Hebrew  Capitula  end  in  one  way,  and  the  Greek  of  the 
Septuagint,  and  the  Latin,  also,  in  another."*^  "But 
what  we  have  read  is  the  end  of  this  Capitulum,  ac- 
cording to  the  Septuagint."  But  Hupfeld^  says  that, 
for  the  most  part,  these  Capitula  are  passages  of  very 
various  length,  taken  arbitrarily,  not  by  their  connec- 
tion, and  often  consist  but  of  a  single  verse,  or  half  verse, 
and  so  are  synonymous  with  locus,  place,  or  subject.^ 

"  Berach.  fol.  12,  c.  2. 

''  Megill.  iv.  4,  mention  is  made  of  Parashes  in  the  Prophets.    The  single 
Psakns  are  called  Parashes,  in  Berach.  p.  9,  c.  2,  p.  10,  c.  1. 

'  See  below,  §  107.  ■*  Qusest.  Heb.  Gen.  xxv.  13—18. 

'  L.  c.  p.  842. 

•^  See  Jerome,  Qusest.  in  Gen.  iv.  15.    xv.  16.    xxxvi.  24.    xlviii.  5. 

VOL.  I.  38 


298     HISTORY  OF  THE  FORM  OF  THE  TEXT.    [^^8. 

'  §  78. 

The  same  Subject  continued. 

These  Parashes  differ  in  their  origin  and  design  from 
the  greater  Parashes,  as  they  are  called,  (which  are 
also  named  miio,)  that  is,  the  passages,  fifty-fom-  in 
number,  that  are  read  on  the  Sabbath  in  the  syna- 
gogue. These  have  a  later  origin  than  the  others,"  lor 
they  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  but  appear  first 
in  the  Masora,  and  are  not  observed  in  the  rolls  of  the 
synagogue.  The  smaller  have  been  sometimes  con- 
sidered as  subdivisions  of  the  larger,  designed  for 
separate  readers  on  week.  days.  But  in  dividing  the 
Sabbath  lesson  among  the  seven  readers,  regard  was 
had,  as  far  as  possible,  to  the  division  of  the  subject, 
indicated  by  the  smaller  Parashes.  These  Sabbath 
Parashes,  or  Sidrim,  are  not  to  be  confounded  with  the 
Sidrim  which  Jacob  Ben  Chajim  has  placed  in  the  Rab- 
binic Bible,  and  which  amount  to  four  hundred  and 
forty-seven,  in  the  Old  Testament. 

When  the  Sabbath  lessons  agree  with  one  of  these 
greater  Parashes,  they  are  marked,  if  it  is  shut,  with 
esa ;  if  open,  with  dds.  However,  one  (Gen.  xlvii. 
28)  has  no  vacant  space  between   the  lines   before  it.'' 

The  passages  of  the  Prophets  called  Haphtaroth, 
(m^tscn,)  which   are  written    each    on   a    separate    roll, 

The  opposite  doctrine  is  taught  by  Morinus,  p.  493,  and  others,  as  well 
as  in  the  former  edition  of  this  work.     See  Vitrmga,  Syn.  Vet.  p.  969,  sq. 

*  [Some  of  the  Jews  say  Moses  or  Ezra  affixed  these  letters  to  mark  the 
divisions ;  but  this  opinion  has  no  foundation  in  fact.  There  is  a  great  di- 
versity in  the  use  of  tliese  letters  in  the  MSS.  In  common  editions  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  290  sections  of  the  Pentateuch  are  marked  with  a  D.  See 
some  curious  remarks  on  this  subject  in  Leusden,  1.  c.  diss,  iv.,  particularly 
§  xiv.  and  xix.,  sq.] 


§  78.]         HISTORY    OF    THE    FORM    OF    THE    TEXT.  299 

and  are  mentioned  in  the  Mishna,"  are  similar  to  these.* 
Elias  the  Levite  gives  the  following  unlucky  conjecture 
as  to  the  origin  of  this  custom  of  reading  the  prophetic 
passages :  "  Antiochus  the  wicked,"  sajs  he,  "  king 
of  Greece,  forbade  the  Israelites  to  read  the  law.  What 
did  the  Israelites  ?  They  took  a  Parash  from  the 
Prophets,  similar  in  argument  to  the  Parash  of  that 
Sabbath."'  This  custom  is  scarcely  to  be  looked  for 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  apparent,  from  Acts  xiii. 
18,  sqq.,  and  Luke  iv.  16,  sqq.,  that  the  Prophets  were 
then  read  in  the  synagogue.  But  from  the  latter 
passage  it  appears  there  were  then  no  Haphtara/ 

Our  present  division  into  chapters,  which  the  Jews 
also  have  accepted,*  is  of  Christian  origin,  and  does  not 
extend  beyond  the  thirteenth  century.     Gilbert  Gene- 


"  Megill.  iv.  5. 

*  Leiisden,  Phil.  Heb.  diss.  iii.  §  4,  p.  28,  says  the  section  of  the  Prophets 
is  called  n"iw?rt  >  a  dismission,  {missa,  dimissio,)  from  ^'ct  >  '"  send  away,  and 
has  its  name  from  ceasing  or  finishing,  because  the  Sabbath  reading  ceased, 
and  was  finished,  and  the  people  were  dismissed,  when  this  passage  from  the 
Prophets  was  read ;  and  the  reader  of  this  section  was  called -I'^'^rja ,  dis- 
missing, because  he  was  wont  to  dismiss  the  assembly.  Elias,  in  Thisbi, 
under  the  word  it:?  ?  says  Haphtnra  signifies  cessation. 

Bodenschatz,  Kirchl.  Verf.  d.  Juden,  ii.  26,  sqq.,  gives  a  catalogue  of  the 
Haphtara.  [See  Home,  pt.  i.  ch.  ii.  sect.  iii.  §  2,  vol.  i.  p.  213,  and  pt.  iii. 
ch.  1.  sect  iv.  vol.  ii.  p.  105,  sq.,  who  also  gives  a  catalogue  of  both.] 

"  It  may  be  seen  from  Maccab.  i.  41,  sqq.,  and  Josephus,  Ant.  xii.  4,  5, 
whether  this  was  possible  fur  the  Jews  at  that  time.  Against  the  well-foi-med 
doul)ts  of  Jahn,  p.  367,  see  Bertholdt,  p.  204,  and  the  opinion  of  Vitringa, 
1.  c.  p.  1008. 

"^  Jahn,  306.  On  the  other  hand,  Bertholdt,  p.  205,  who  follows  Carjjzov, 
p.  147.  [It  has  not  been  shown  that  Jesus  read  the  "lesson  for  the  day,"  in 
the  synagogue  at  Nazareth.  It  is  more  probable  he  selected  a  passage  to 
suit  the  occasion.] 

'  R.  JVathan,  A.  C.  1440,  Prajf.  Concord.  Heb.  El.  LevUa,  Vorrede  zur 
Hammas,  p.  17.  Buxtorf,  Praef.  Concord.  Heb.  Col.  4 — 14.  Morinus,  1.  c, 
p.  487.     Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  152.     The  Jewish  names  of  these  chapters  are 


300     HISTORY  OF  THE  FORM  OF  THE  TEXT.    [^  78. 

brardus''  sajs,  "About  that  time,  (that  is,  1240  A.  C.,) 
the  Bibles  were  divided  into  chapters,  as  we  have  them 
at  this  day.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  invention  of 
the  scholastics,  of  those,  perhaps,  who,  with  Cardinal 
Hugo,  (1262,)  were  the  authors  of  the  Concordances  ; 
for  the  theoloo^ians  who  lived  before  this  time  do  not 
use  them,  [the  chapters,]  but  those  who  lived  later, 
use  them  frequently."  Balaeus*  ascribes  this  invention 
to  his  countryman  Stephen  Langthon,  archbishop  of 
Canterbury.     Jahn  unites  both  accounts. 

[In  Hugo's  Concordance,  the  chapter  was  referred  to 
by  number,  and  the  page  was  divided  into  several 
sections,  marked  with  the  letters  of  the  alphabet. 
Before  his  time,  the  Fathers  merely  referred  to  the 
book  ;  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  designated  the  particu- 
lar portion  of  the  book  by  naming  the  most  prominent 
subject  of  the  passage  —  the  "Bush,"  the  "Deluge," 
&c.,  as  the  Mohamedans,  at  this  day,  refer  to  the  Koran, 
and  cite  the  "  Cow,"  the  "  Table,"  the  "  Woman,"  and 
the  like. ' 

In  the  absence  of  more  certain  marks  to  indicate  the 
passage,  recourse  was  had  to  a  name  casually  given  to  a 
paragraph  from  its  contents.  Thus  Philo  says,  "  For 
the  Law  says  in  the  Curses." '^  So,  in  Mark  ii.  26,  as 
some  think,  the  passage  in  1  Sam.  xxi. — xxii.  is  referred 
under  the  title  "  Abiathar."*^  In  Mark  xii.  26,  the 
third  chapter  of  Exodus  is  apparently  referred  to  as  the 

"  Chron.  lib.  iv.  p.  644. 

»  H.  E.  Cent.  xiii.  c.  7,  10.  — Langthon  died  1227. 
[It  is  plain,  from  Acts  xiii.  33,  35,  that  the  Psalms  were  divided  and 
marked  at  an  ancient  date.] 
<^  De  Ag-ricult  p.  203. 
[The  words  the  days  of  are  added  in  the  English  version  of  the  passage, 
and  are  not  certainly  implied  in  the  term  inl  'J^i&d-ao ;  but  see  the  same 
usage  of  inl,  for  the  time,  in  Luke  iii.  2.] 


§79.]         HISTORY    OF    THE    FORM    OF    THE    TEXT.  301 

"  Bush."  In  Romans  xi.  2,  reference  is  made  to 
1  Kings  xvii. — xix.  under  the  title  "  Elias."  Raschi, 
commenting  on  Hosea  ix.  9,  "  As  in  the  days  of  Gibc- 
ah,"  says,  this  is  Gibeah  of  Benjamin,  spoken  of  in 
the  "  Harlot,"  referring  to  Judges  xix. — xxi.  In  psahn 
ii.  he  refers  to  2  Sam.  ii.  8,  sqq.,  under  the  title  "  Ab- 
ner.""  Sometimes  the  paragraph  is  named  from  the  first 
or  second  word  it  contains ;  thus  the  first  part  of  Gene- 
sis is  called  "  Bereshith  ;  "  another  passage,  "  Noah  ; " 
another,  "Leka,"  ^)>,  that  is,  to  you.''  Our  English 
translators  were,  perhaps,  ignorant  of  this  manner  of 
reference,  and  sometimes  made  ludicrous  mistakes 
through  their  ignorance  of  it.  Thus,  in  2  Sam.  i.  18 
it  is  said  David  bade  them  teach  the  children  of  Judah 
the  "  Bow,"  referring  to  the  poetical  passage  from  the 
book  of  Jasher,  that  follows,  in  which  the  "  bow  of 
Jonathan "  is  mentioned ;  in  our  version,  it  reads, 
"  teach  them  the  use  of  the  bow."] 


§79. 
2.    The  Division  into  Sticks  or  Verses. 

In  the  poetical  books  and  passages,  the  separate 
sentences  or  members  of  the  rhythmical  passage  were 
separated  or  broken  off  into  sticks,  (oiiy^oi,)  or  verses, 
or  divided  into  cola  and  commata,  (vMi.a  y.al  y.ouuaTa,) 
greater  and  smaller  verses. 

This  custom  was  observed  by  the  Greeks,  Romans, 
and  Arabians.  It  is  proved  that  it  prevailed  among 
the  Jews  also,  by  the  fact  that  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Septuagint  and  the  old   Latin   versions  are  written  in 

*  [John,  vol,  i.  p.  370.     Lensden,  Phil.  Heb.  diss.  iii.  §  4.] 
^  [Buriorf,  1.  c.  p.  281.] 


302     HISTORY  OF  THE  FORM  OF  THE  TEXT.    [^  79. 

this  manner ;  that  the  poetic  passages  of  the  historical 
books  are  still  divided  in  this  way,  and  that  the  poetical 
books  in  the  oldest  manuscripts,  such  as  the  Paris 
manuscript,  the  Bodleyan,  the  Cassel,  and  Regiomon- 
tanus,  are  still  written  in  this  manner." 

Epiphanius  says,  "  There  are  five  books  written  in 
verses,  namely.  Job,  the  Psalter,  the  Proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon, Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Songs."  So  Atha- 
nasius,  "  And  rising,  she  repeated  the  first  stick,  (that 
is,  from  Ps.  cxix.,)  '  I  arose  at  midnight  to  praise  thee 
for  the  judgment  of  thy  righteousness.'"  Chrysostom 
says,  "  Each  stich  suffices  to  afford  us  much  philosophy; 

if  we  examine  each  sentence  (Qi]aiv)  with  care, 

we  shall  gain  great  good."*  This  division  is  found  in 
the  Alexandrine  and  Vatican  manuscripts,  and  in  several 
versions.' 


"  See  Martianay,  1.  c.  Kcnnicott,  Diss.  p.  308.  ffolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii. 
p.  298,  309.     Sivion,  1.  c.  p.  156. 

''  Epiphan.  De  Pond,  et  Mens,  c.  iv.  p.  162:  Uh'TS  OTtxi'iQeig,  ri  jov  'ICj^ 
^l8loQ,  rha  t6  Wulii^^toi',  Uagotfilai  2!a}.o/n(i)PTog,'ExxhjaiaaTiig,^yf(Tiua 
da(i6.TMv.  Conip.  Gres:Qr.  J\taz.  Carm.  xxxiii.  Suicer.  Thes.  eccles.  p.  1020. 
Jlthanas.  Tract  de  Virginit. :  'AfKTTaf.dvj)  8e  nQWioy  joviov  ibv  otIxov  eini' 
Meaovlytiiov  i^rjyFiQdjiirjj;  lov  i^ofwloynad-ui  aoi  xd  xqIuutu  ttjj  dtxaio- 
aCvijg  aov,  (Ps.  cxix.)     Chysost.  in  Ps.  xli.  (xlii.) :  'jIqusT  5k  sMaaiog  ail/og 

■jToXlxiv    rifili'    exd^elvai,  cpiloaocplav nq.v  fiEza  dxQi^elug  kx&aujv  dts- 

qevv^^aoifiev  Qy\aiv,  ^ley&Xa   yagnojadfJE&a  dyu&di. 

'  See  Breifmger,  Proll.  T.  I.  c.  1,  §  6.  It  is  found  in  the  Psalter  Turic  ; 
PsalL  Sang-erm,  and  others  ;  in  Fabri  Stapul.  Psalt.  quincupl. ;  Psalt.  Gr.  et 
Lat.  Veron ;  in  Btanchini,  Ev.  quadrup.  ii.  532,  Tab.  2 ;  Psalt.  Gr.  et  Lat. 
Coislin. ;  and  in  Codd.  Lat.  in  Martianay,  0pp.  Hierom.  torn.  i. 

Hieron.  ad  Sunn,  et  Fretel.  on  Ps.  xvii.  13.  0pp.  ii.  p.  631 :  Grando  et  car- 
lonis  ignis.  Et  quseritis,  cnr  Grsecus  istum  versiculum  secundo  non  habeat 
interpositis  duobiis  versibns.  Sed  sciendum,  quia  de  Ilebraico  et  Theodo- 
tionis  editione  in  LXX.  interpretibus  sub  asterisco  additum  sit.  Prooem.  m 
1.  xvi.  Comment,  in  Jes. :  Non  parvam  mihi  quacstiunculam  detulisti,  quod 
scilicet  odo  versus,  qui  leguntur  in  Ecclesiis,  et  in  Hebraico  non  habentur, 
tertii  decimi  Psalmi,  Apostolus  usurparit,  scribens  ad  Romanos.  Sepulcruni 
patens  est!*guttur  eorum:  Unguis  suis  dolose  agebant:  venenum  aspidum 
Bub  labiis  eorum.     Quorum  os  maledictione  et  amaritudine  plenum  est: 


^80,  a.]     HISTORY  of  the  foujm  of  the  text.      303 

The  Talmiidic  Pesuklm,"  in  their  etymology,  cor- 
respond perfectly  with  the  Greek  commata  (xbuaaia) 
and  the  Latin  ccesa,  and  seem  originally  to  have  had 
this  meaning  in  the  rhythmical  books.  Hupfeld  *  comes 
to  this  conclusion  from  the  following  passage  in  Kid- 
dushim:'  "Our  rabbins  say  the  Law  contains  5888 
verses;"'^  and,  according  to  the  present  division,  there 
are  5845.  "  The  Psalms  have  eight  verses  more."  At 
present  they  contain  2527.  "  And  the  Chronicles  eight 
verses  less."  Their  number  of  verses  in  the  Psalms, 
5896,  approaches  the  number  5000  contained  in  the 
Greek  division. 

^  80,  a. 

The  same  Subject  continued. 

In  the  prosaic  books,  there  was  a  logical  division  into 
periods  corresponding  to  the  rhythmical  division  in  the 


veloces  pedes  eorum  ad  eiFundendum  sanguinem.  Contritio  et  infelicitas  in 
viis  eorum :  et  viam  pacis  non  cognoverunt :  non  est  timor  Dei  ante  oculos 
eorum.  JV/ar/tana^/,  Proleg.  iv.  3,  ad  torn.  i. :  Octo  illi  versus,  qui  tres  tantura 
habent  distinctiones  in  nostra  Vulg.  Lat.  et  in  Rom.  Psalterio,  hoc  ordine  et 
numero  decurrunt  in  Psalt  sac.  Germani,  veterem  Vulg.  et  Koiv/iv  complexo : 

Sepulcrum  patens  est  guttur  eorum, 

Linguis  suis  dolose  agebant: 

Venenum  aspidum  sub  labiis  eorum.  jlr. 

Quorum  os  maledictions  et  amaritudine  plenum  est: 

Veloces  pedes  eorum  ad  effundendum  sanguinem : 

Contritio  et  infelicitas  in  viis  eorum, 

Et  viam  pacis  non  cognoverunt: 

Non  est  timor  Dei  ante  oculos  eorum. 

See  Codd.  Paris,  reg.  5  and  6,  b.  Martianay,  1.  c.  Cod.  Bod).  5,  [Kennicott,, 
Diss,  super  Ratione  Text  Heb.  p.  308.)  Cod.  Cassel.  Codd.  Regiomont. 
See  others  in  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  298,  309.  R.  Simon,  Hist  Crit  d. 
V.  T.  p.  156. 

"  D'^plDB  >  froin  poc ,  to  cut,  aecare,  xdnxsiv. 

»  L.  c.  p.  848.  '  Fol.  30,  c.  1.  ^  Morinus  reads  8888. 


304   HISTORY  OF  THE  FORM  OF  THE  TEXT.   [^  80,  11. 

poetic  books.  These  divisions  are  called  Pesukim,  and 
are  mentioned  in  the  Mishna  as  observed  in  reading 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  probably  originated 
from  the  public  reading  of  these  books.  It  is  said  in 
Megilla,  iv.  4,  "  He  who  reads  in  the  Law  must  not 
read  less  than  three  verses,  (q'^ipid!:  .)  Let  not  more  than 
one  verse  [at  a  time]  be  read  to  the  interpreter,  and  in 
the  Prophets  three."  Tiiis  division  into  verses  is  de- 
rived from  Moses." 

It  appears  from  the  number  of  these  PesuJcim,  which 
has  been  handed  down  to  us,  that  they  were  our  present 
verses.  In  Megilla,  iv.  4,  the  passage  Isa.  Hi.  3 — 5  is 
reckoned  as  three  verses.  In  Taan.  iv.  3,  a  precept  is 
given  for  reading  the  history  of  the  Creation  (Gen.  i.) 
according  to  the  Parashes,  and  the  number  of  the  verses 
in  the  Law.  So  in  the  Babylon  Gemara,*  the  passage 
in  Deut.  xxxiv.  5 — 12,  is  called  "  the  last  eight  verses 
of  the   Law." 

Besides  these,  there  occur  in  the  Gemara  other 
divisions,  called  Pesukim,  (u'^did'^Q)  or,  more  commonly, 
G-jps-t)  '^D^D'iE,)  and  also  Tamim,  (o-i^osa,)  sentences  which 
sometimes  seem  to  denote  reading  lessons  in  general, 
and  sometimes,  in  a  narrower  sense,  short  passages  or 
half  verses  in  the  Pesukim.  Thus,  in  Nederim,"  it  is 
said,  "  What  is  that  which  is  written,  '  And  they  read  in 
the  book,  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord,  distinctly,  and  gave  the 
sense,  and  caused  them  to  understand  the  reading'?" 
Neh.  viii.  8 :  "  And  they  read  in  the  book,  in  the  Law 
of  the  Lord," — that  is,  the  text, — "distinctly,"  —  that  is, 
they  read  the  Targum,  —  "  and  gave  the  sense,"  —  that  is, 
the  verses,  (d'^pids,) — "and  caused  them  to  understand 


MegUl.  fol.  22.  "  Bab.  Bath.  fol.  14,  c.  2.    Menach.  f.  30,  c.  1. 

'  Fol.  37,  col.  2. 


^  80,  6.]        HISTORY    OF    THE    FORM    OF    THE    TEXT.       305 

the  sense," — that  is,  the  marks  of  the  sentences,  (a^ipibQ 
S'li^Jtj.)  Again  :  "  Raf  said,  '  Is  it  lawful  to  receive  the 
price  for  overseeing  the  j^ouths  ?  '  and  R.  Johanan  said, 
'  It  is  lawful  to  receive  a  price  for  teaching  the  marks 
of  the  sentences.''^''  R.  Chasda  inquired  respecting  that 
place  where  it  is  written,  "  And  he  sent  joung  men  of 
the  children  of  Israel,  which  offered  burnt-offerings," 
(namely,  lambs,)  "  and  sacrificed  peace-offerings  unto 
Jehovah,"  (namely,  bullocks.)  Ex.  xxiv.  5.  "  How  can 
it  be  known,"  he  asked,  "that  the}'^  did  not  sacrifice 
bullocks  in  both  cases  ?  "  To  which  Mar  Sutra  replies, 
"  By  the  marks  of  the  sentences,''''  (or,  as  Buxtorf  renders 
it,  the  pauses  of  the  sentences.)'^ 

^  80,  b. 
The  same  Subject  concluded. 

It  appears  that  these  divisions  into  verses  were  made 
originally  without  any  external  signs  of  the  division, 
and  were  preserved  only  by  oral  teaching.  This  seems 
to  be  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Talmud  never  men- 
tions any  signs  of  the  division,  and  the  first  notice  of 
them  occurs  in  Tract  Sopherim,  iii.  7;'  from  the  fact 
that  they  are  not  found  in  the  synagogue  rolls ;  that  the 
observance  of  them  is  mentioned  as  a  branch  which  was 
taught  in  the  schools,  as  an  art  to  be  learned ;  and  from 
the  fact  that  the  old  translators  differ  in  their  division 
into  verses.  Examples  of  this  occur  in  the  Septuagint 
and  the  Vulgate.' 

"  Berach.  fol.  92,  col.  1.  Megill.  fol.  3,  col.  1.  Hieros.  Megill.  fol.  74, 
col.  6.     Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  ch.  9.    Biudorfthe  younger,  De  Punct.  p.  80 — 94. 

''  Liber  Legis,  in  quo  incisum  est  et  in  quo  capita  incisorum  punctata 
sunt,  ne  \egas  in  eo. 

'  Ex.  Ps.  xliv.  11,  12.   xc.  2.     Lam.  iii.  5.    Jon.  ii,  6.    Obad.  verse  9.     In 

VOL.  I.  39 


306       HISTORY    OF    THE    FORM    OF    THE    TEXT.       [§  80,  6 

However,  it  is  possible,  reasoning  from  the  analogy 
of  the  shut  Parashes,  that  the  verses  may  have  been 
marked  by  leaving  a  small  space  between  them.  It 
could  not  be  done  by  a  break  in  the  sentence,  as  Pri- 
deaux  and  Beitholdt  suppose,"  for  this  would  have  de- 
stroyed the  division  into  Parashes,  which  was  never  to 
be  given  up.  The  decalogue  was  originally  written  in 
ten  lines,  (n-^tj-'i:; ,)  as  it  appears  from  a  Targum  on  Cant. 
V.  13.  The  division  of  the  prophetic  books  into  greater 
and  smaller  passages,  (cola  and  commata,)  and  the  his- 
torical into  comrnata,  was  an  innovation  introduced  by 
Jerome.  He  says,  "  No  one,  when  he  sees  the  Proph- 
ets divided  into  verses,  will  suppose  that  they  were 
bound  by  metre  among  the  Hebrews,  or  that  they  re- 
semble the  measure  of  the  Psalms,  and  the  writings  of 
Solomon.  But  as  it  is  commonly  done  in  the  writings 
of  Demosthenes  and  Tully,  which  are  divided  into  long 
and  short  sentences,  (cola  and  commata,)  though  they 
wrote  in  prose,  and  not  in  verse,  so  we  have  consulted 
the  convenience  of  the  reader,  and  divided  our  new 
version  after  this  new  manner  of  writing."  Again  he 
says,  "  Read  according  to  our  translation,  for  when  the 
text  is  written  in  cola  and  commata,  the  sense  is  more 
obvious  to  the  reader."  "  That  I  might  arrange  it 
more  perspicuously,  and  in  paragraphs."  "  We  admon- 
ish the  reader  that  a  careful  transcriber  will  preserve 
the  distinctions  marked  by  the  paragraphs."*  The 
following  passage,  "  from  the  above-named  verse  to  the 

the  Vulg.  Cant.  v.  5.  Eccl.  i,  5.  Cltricus,  Ars  crit.  pt.  iii.  c.  10,  §  23. 
Cappellus,  Crit.  sac.  ed.  Vogd,  vol.  ii.  p.  545,  869. 

"  Connections,  vol.  i.  p.  332.  Bertholdt,  p.  208.  This  opinion  was  de- 
fended in  the  earlier  editions  of  this  work. 

*  Jerome,  Prsef.  in  Jes. :  Nemo  cum  Prophetas  versibus  viderit  esse  de- 
scriptos,  metro  eos  eestimet  apud  Hebraeos  ligari  et  aliquid  simile  habere  de 


§81.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  307 

end  of  the  book  then  remains  a  little  comma,'^^  (TteQixom],) 
has  led  Jahn  and  Bertholdt  astray  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  commata  were  longer  than  the  cola." 

The  verses  were  first  marked  with  numbers  in  Sabio- 
netti's  edition  of  the  Pentateuch,  1537  ;  more  perfectly 
in  Athias's  edition,  with  Leusden's  preface,  in  IGGl,  and 
in  Stephens's  editions  of  the  Vulgate,  since  1338. 


CHAPTER   II. 
HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   ITSELF. 

§  81. 
CORRUPTION  OF  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  fact  that  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  has  not 
come  down  to  us  in  a  faultless  state,  forces  itself  upon 


Psalmis  et  operibus  Salomonis:  sed  quod  in  Demosthene  et  in  Tullio  solet 
fieri,  ut  per  cola  scribantur  et  commata,  qui  utique  prosa  et  non  versibus 
conscripserunt,  nos  quoque  utilitati  legentium  providentes  interpretationem 
novam  novo  scribendi  genere  distinximus.  Prsef.  in  Ezech. :  Legite  et 
hunc  juxta  translationem  nostram:  quoniam  per  cola  scriptus  et  commata, 
manifestiorem  legentibus  sensum  tribuit.  Prtef.  in  Paralip, :  —  apertius  et 
per  versuum  cola  digererem.  Prcef.  in  Jos.:  Monemus  lectorem,  ut  —  dis- 
tinctiones  per  membra  divisas  diligens  scriptor  conservet 

"  Martianay,  Prsef.  in  0pp.  Jerome,  i.  prol.  iv.  3,  states  the  matter  cor- 
rectly. Bertholdt,  p.  209,  following  Tychsen,  in  Eichhorn,  Rep.  vol.  iii.  p.  140, 
thinks  Jerome  found  this  division  in  the  Hebrew  MSS.  On  the  other  hand, 
see  Mo7-i7ius,  p.  447.  Eichhorn,  §  77,  p.  264.  But  the  latter  has  not  suffi- 
ciently attended  to  the  following  passages.  Ep.  ad  Cyprian,  ad  Ps.  xc.  11, 
(0pp.  ii.  p.  702:)  Inter  Hebraicum  et  Septuaginta  diversa  distinctio  est: 
LXX.  enim  dinumerationem  {-i13to^)  timori  et  furori  domini  copulant  Ep.  ad 
Paullam  de  Alphabeto  Hebr,  Ps.  cxviii.  (cxix.)  0pp.  ii.  p.  709  :  —  quod  vide- 
licet ex  prima  littera,  quae  apud  eos  vocatur  Aleph,  octo  versus  inciperent. 
Ad  Jerem.  ix.  22 :  LXX.  et  Theodotion  junxerunt  illud  praeterito  capitulo. 


308  HISTORY    OF    THK    TEXT.  [^  82. 

the  thoughtful  interpreter  in  many  places,  even  if  he 
does  not  make  any  very  extensive  critical  investigations, 
by  the  obvious  impropriety  and  want  of  sense  in  the 
common  readings."  Yet  the  critical  skeptics,  Morinus, 
Cappellus,  and  others,  were  obliged  to  fight  for  the  ad- 
mission of  this  fact,  against  the  blind  defenders  of  the  in- 
violable purity  of  the  text.  Even  Kennicott  was  obliged 
to  contend  for  it. 

^  82. 

PROBABILITY  THAT  ERRORS  WOULD   BE   INTRODUCED   INTO 

THE   TEXT. 

From  the  nature  of  things  and  the  fate  of  all  ancient 
books,*  we  must  suppose  that  the  Old  Testament,  in 
spite  of  the  holy  zeal  of  the  Jews  to  maintain  its  purity, 

—  which  may  be  called  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 

—  would  become  disfigured  by  the  faults  of  transcribers, 
unless  a  continual  miracle  took  place.  The  possible 
origin  of  errors  may  be  traced  back  to  two  main  causes, 
namely,  to  accident  and  design,  both  of  which  have, 
unquestionably,  had  an  influence  on  the  Old  Testament. 

[Eichhorn  and  others  suppose  the  original  manu- 
scripts, as  they  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  the  author, 
or  his  amanuensis,  may  have  contained  mistakes,  omis- 
sions, repetitions,  errors  in  orthography,  and   the  like. 

He  is  mistaken  if  he  takes  this  for  a  mere  division  of  the  words  into  lines  — 
as  it  is  probable  he  does,  following  R.  Simon,  1.  c.  p.  145.  Comp.  Jerome,  Prffif. 
in  Ezek. 

*  Ex.  xvii.  16.  (Comp.  Clericus,  Vater,  in  loc.)  Num.  xvi.  l.(Comp.  Vater.) 

1  Sam.  vi.  18.  xiii.  1.  (Comp.  des  Vignoles  Chronol.  i.  138,  sqq.)    xiv.  32. 

2  Sam.  vi.  4.  xix.  25.  xxii.  33.  xxiii.  8.  1  Kings  vii.  15,  20.  (xi.  15  ?)  1  Ch. 
xxvi.  2-3.  2  Ch.  xx.  1,  sq.  Jes.  vii.  8.  Jerem.  xxvii.  1.  Comp.  3,  12.  xviii.  1. 
Ps.  xviii.  5,  4,  3.  xxv.  17.  xxvii.  13.  Ixxiii.  7.  (Comp.  Schiurrer,  Diss.  p.  184.) 

''  Le  Clerc,  Ars  crit.  pt.  iii.  vol.  ii.  ch.  1 — 15. 


^  82.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  309 

In  the  short  book  of  Amos  there  are  many  orthographical 
errors,  which  probably  belong  to  the  original  manu- 
script. But  it  is  the  duty  of  the  critic  to  restore  the 
text  to  the  condition  in  which  the  author  published  it ; 
not  to  correct  his  errors,  though  he  may  attempt  to 
account  for  them. 

1.  Eichhorn  thinks  the  authors  themselves  sometimes 
made  a  recension  of  some  parts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
or  a  new  edition,  revised  throughout,  and  altered  here 
and  there.  In  some  instances,  he  thinks  we  have  both 
editions  in  the  original  language  ;  for  example,  Ps.  xiv. 
and  liii.  In  other  cases,  one  edition  is  in  the  original, 
the  other  in  a  translation.  Such  is  the  Septuagint  trans- 
lation of  Jeremiah.  Besides  this,  later  writers  borrowed 
passages  from  their  predecessors,  after  making  slight 
alterations.  Thus,  for  example,  the  later  prophets  took 
much  from  one  another,  and  from  earlier  writers ;  in  this 
manner,  Ps.  cviii.  is  compiled  from  Ps.  Ivii,  8 — 12,  and 
Ix.  7 — 14.  Compare  Jer.  xlviii.  with  Isa.  xv.  xvi.  ;  Jer. 
xlix.  7—17,  with  Obadiah. 

2.  If  a  hymn  or  a  proverb  were  taken  from  the 
mouth  of  the  people  and  reduced  to  writing,  —  and  this 
was,  perhaps,  the  case  with  some  psalms  and  proverbs, 
—  it  was  almost  impossible  to  avoid  errors.  Thus  some 
psalms,  not  always  the  oldest  nor  the  most  recondite, 
contain  numerous  inaccuracies,  which  cannot  be  cor- 
rected by  the  ancient  versions,  the  present  manuscripts, 
or  any  critical  authorities ;  while  other  psalms,  of  great- 
er antiquity,  need  scarce  any  correction,  or  are  easily 
amended  by  the  common  critical  methods.  Ps.  cxix., 
with  its  one  hundred  and  seventy-six  separate  sentences, 
has  come  down  to  us  in  a  remarkably  perfect  state.  If 
the  iron  diligence  of  the  Jewish  copyists  preserved  this 
and  others  so  perfectly,  are  we  to  attribute  the  errors 


310  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  83. 

of  Other  psalms  to  their  negligence  ?  It  seems  wise, 
in  his  view,  to  refer  them  to  the  original  state  of  the 
text,  of  which  the  author  published  two  editions. 

3.  When  the  writer  cast  earlier  pieces  into  a  new 
form,  or  abridged  them,  the  chances  of  error  were  in- 
creased. Examples  of  this  kind  of  error  may  be  found 
in  Gen.  vii.  9,  16,  compared  with  vi.  19;  in  1  Ch.  i. 
17,  sqq.,  compared  with  Gen.  x. — xi.]" 

^83. 

ORIGIN   OF  ERRONEOUS   READINGS. 
1.  By  Accident. 

The  errors  of  copyists  are  manifold. 

I.    They  saw  ivrong. 

1.  Thus  they  confounded  similar  letters.*  Hence, 
on  the  supposition  that  numeral  characters  were  used, 
we  are  to  explain  the  difference  in  numbers,  a  mis- 
taken for  T,  2  Sam.  xxiv.  13.  Seven  years,  in  1  Ch. 
xxi.  12 ;  the  Septuagint  has  three  years.  &  mistaken 
for  5,  1  Kings  xii.  21,  180,000;  the  Septuagint  reads 
120,000."  [In  this  manner  many  other  mistakes  in 
numbers   seem    to   have    arisen ;    for   example,   2    Ch. 


"  [Eichhorn,  §  82 — 86.  Teller,  Diss,  de  Judicio  super  variis  Lectt.  Cod. 
Heb.  recte  faciendo,  in  his  Opuscula,  p.  33,  sqq.] 

'  Cappellics,  Crit  sac.  ed.  Vogel,  vol.  i.  p.  79,  sqq.  Eichhorn,  §  96.  Hit- 
zig,  Begriff  der  Kritik.  p.  126.  Often  t  and  "i .  Ps.  ex.  3,  tilp  '^'lin:? ,  var. 
lecL  'P  ^'^!'}^J^_  •  Ps.  xix.  14,  ^^'1^'^ ,  LXX.  ?  ti^'l^>2  .  —  ^  with  ^ .  Jos.  xv. 
47,  bi23n,  Keri  ^nari.  — :;  with  a .  Ps.  Ixxviii.  69.  yis5,Verss.  y-is^n, 
Neh.xii.  3,  nlJSSr,  Vs.  14,  n;;5iu5._  >,  with  ^  Gen. xxxvi. 23, '^^bs* ,  1  Ch. 

i.  40,  i:;b?. 

'  Kennicott,  Diss.  vol.  i.  p.  521—527,  vol.  ii.  p.  201—203.  Diss.  Gen.  ed, 
Bruns,  §  27.    Bauer,  Crit.  sac.  p.  188,  sqq. 


^83.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  311 

xiii.  3,  it  is  said  Jeroboam  led  out  an  army  of  800,000 
men,  and  lost  500,000  in  the  field  ;  in  xvii.  13 — 19, 
that  Jehoshaphat  could  bring  an  army  of  1,160,000  into 
the  field  ;  and,  xiv.  7,  sqq.,  that  Asa  had  580,000  men 
from  the  two  tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  that  Zerah 
came  out  against  him  with  1,000,000  —  statements  quite 
incredible. 

Other  numbers,  which  make  no  sense,  must  be  ex- 
plained in  the  same  manner;  for  example,  1  Sam. 
xiii.  1,  Saul  was  one  year  old  when  he  became  king; 
2  Ch.  xxii.  2,  Ahaziah,  at  the  age  of  forty-two,  succeeds 
his  father,  who  had  just  died  in  his  fortieth  year ;  1  Ch. 
xxix.  4 — 7,  David,  of  his  poverty,  gives  3000  talents  of 
gold,  and  7000  of  silver ;  others  give  5000  of  gold, 
10,000  of  silver,  18,000  of  brass,  and  100,000  of  iron, 
at  a  time  when  the  talent  of  gold  was  worth  24,309 
dollars,  and  the  weight  of  the  talent  (of  iron  and  brass) 
was  125  pounds.  The  numeral  for  ten  is  often  over- 
looked; as  in  Ezra  ii.  34,  the  Hebrew  reads  1017,  and 
the  Septuagint  1007  ;  Esth.  ix.  14,  Haman  has  ten  sons, 
in  the  Hebrew ,  the  Septuagint  omits  the  number.  It 
is  to  be  remembered  that  formerly  the  Hebrew  letters 
resembled  one  another  more  closely  than  at  present.]" 

2.  They  misplaced  letters.* 

3.  They  misplaced  whole  words.  2  Sam.  vi.  2. 
Compare  1  Ch.  xiii.  6.  Ezra  ii.  70.  Compare  Neh. 
vii.  73.  According  to  Houbigant  and  Hitzig,  ^™'  is 
transposed  in  Ps.  xxxv.  7. 

"  See  Faber's  Programm.  in  Eichhorn,  §  96. 

"  Ez.  ii.  46,  ""^^^ip,  Neh.  vii.  48,  ''^^K?5  1  Kings  x.  It,  Q-aiJa^N,  2 
Ch.  ix.  10,  Q'^?3^a^s?;  Ps.  xviii.  46,  "^^^^2],  2  Sam.  xxii.  ^^^n^T,  CappelL 
p.  71,  sqq.  According  to  Movers,  Cliron.  p.  76,  they  both  confounded  and 
misplaced,  in  2  Sam.  vi.  5,  q-^ioiis  ijzj*  ^55,  instead  of  tj'^l'^riSI  t3>  i)33) 
1  Ch.  xiii.  8. 


312  IIISTOIIY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  83. 

4.  They  transposed  whole  passages.  Ps.  xcvi.  9 — 
11.  Compare  1  Ch.  xvi.  30 — 32.  [Eichhorn  maintains 
that  Job  xl.  32 — xli.  3,  is  transposed  from  its  true 
place.] " 

5.  They  omit  letters,  words,  and  sentences,  especially 
when  two  sentences  have  the  same  ending.'' 

II.  They  heard  wrong,  or  confounded  in  their  mind, 
letters  of  a  similar  sound.' 

III.  Mistakes  of  memory.  Where  the  transcriber 
copied  freely,  or  trusted  entirely  to  memory,  he  might 
make  mistakes : 

1.  By  transposing  words  and  sentences,  as  described 
above,  (I.  3,  4.) 

2.  By  omitting  words  and  sentences,  (I.  5.) 

3.  By  confounding  synonymous  words,  as  in  Levit. 
XXV.  36,  ^!5  with  ^^;  2  Kings  i.  10,  ^nV-  ^^ith  ^^^-^1. 
nini  is  often  exchanged  for  ^Dns^. 

4.  By  alterations  from  the  parallel  passages.  Jes. 
vii.  8,  m?3m  s'lTrsJ,  Cod.  96,  for  U3?2m  ti'^rj^D,  after  the  fre- 
quent parallels;  Jes.  Ixiii.  16,  "^^-j  i:y>a?5  for  yzia  cbii'^'a  ,* 
the  former  often  occurs. 

"  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  ii.  p.  617,  sqq.,  §  95.    Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  22,  23,  71. 
*"  Cappeilus,  p.    115,  sqq.,  enumerates   many  erroneous  examples.     See 

VogeVs  remarks,  p.  119,  sqq.  Neh.  xi.  5,  n^t'.^:>o,  1  Ch.  ix.  5,  n:;'«  ;  Ps. 
xviii.  42,  ^5^'C'i ,  2  Sam.  xxii.  ^^T^^  ;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  25,  comp.  1  Ch.  xi.  27 ; 
Gen.  xxxvi.  11,  12,  comp.  1  Ch.  i.  36 ;  Jos.  xxi.  23,  comp.  1  Ch.  v.  53,  54. 

Eichhorn,  §  105,  following  Kohler,  Repert  vol.  ii.  p.  261,  finds  such  an 
omission  from  6/uoioTilsvTor,  in  1  Ch.  xi.  13.  Comp.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  9 — 11. 
According  to  him,  Repert  vol.  vi.  p.  13,  there  is  another  in  Ps.  xxxvii.  28  ; 
(see  the  LXX.,  Symmachus,  the  Vulgate,  and  Cappeilus,  1.  c.  p.  119,  sqq. ;) 
another  in  1  Kings  xiv.  25.  Comp.  2  Ch.  xii.  2 — 9.  Perhaps  Num.  xxvi. 
3,  4,  belongs  here. 

"  1  Sam.  xxiL  18,  a'lin,  Keri  aKl" ;  Jes.  xxxvii.  9,  bp,  2 Kings  xix.9,  ^N  , 
Ps.  lix.  9,  n^>3'.^-!*,LXX.  and  Verss.  H^'afs.  See  other  examples  in  Cap- 
pellu^y  p.  74,  and  Eichhorn,  §  97. 


^  83.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  313 

IV.    Errors  of  understanding. 

1.  In  the  division  of  words,  (Ps.  xlviii.  15,  tn?3-^5> 
and  m^sisj ;  Ps.  xxv.  17,  '^mpr^^Ja  i^'^mn  for  '^nipis):):!  i^n'-\n ,) 
and  by  the  marks  in  the  margin,  which  were  brought 
into  the  text. 

2.  In  the  use  of  abbreviations.  [Eichhorn  cites  an 
error  of  this  kind  from  Sjmmachus.  Isa.  xlii.  19, 
""1  -2:)5  (which  stands  for  mn-'  nay^D,  servant  of  Jeho- 
vah) he  translates  o  dovloq,  fiov,  my  servant."  Jer.  vi. 
11)  "i  n72n,  in  the  Seventy,  d-viiov  uov  ;  as  if  it  were 
'in>3n .] 

3.  In  the  use  of  the  custodes  linearum.  [The  tran- 
scribers of  the  Hebrew  Bible  did  not  allow  themselves 
to  divide  a  word,  when  the  line  would  not  contain 
the  whole  of  it,  nor  to  leave  a  vacant  space ;  so  they 
filled  it  with  some  favorite  letter,  in  general  with  the 
initial  of  the  next  word  ;  but  they  wrote,  the  next  word 
fully,  in  its  proper  place,  as  if  its  initial  had  not  been 
written  before.  An  ignorant  or  careless  copyist  was 
easily  led  astray  by  such  letters.  On  the  one  hand, 
learned  transcribers  have  sometimes  fancied  these  letters 
when  there  were  none,  and  so  have  omitted  what  be- 
longed to  the  text.]  There  is  an  example  of  this 
mistake  in  Isa.  xxxv.  1,  where  tjiisia'^  is  put  instead  of 
r^jm ;  for  the  )a  may  belong  to  the  next  word,  s::nJa ,  and 
be  written  as  a  custos.'' 

In  this  manner,  explanatory  scholia  are  drawn  into 
the  text.     So   ^^tJ5»  -^)>r:  tns,  Isa.  vii.    17,  according  to 

"  Rosenmiiller,  in  loc. ;  other  examples  in  Eichhorn,  §  103,  Kennicott, 
Diss.  §  28. 

''  Kennicott,  Diss,  Gen.  §  25.  John,  i.  477.  Stark,  in  Odis  Davidis,  has 
collected  numerous  examples  of  this  kind,  from  the  old  versions  of  the 
Psalms.    See  Conjectures  in  Eichhorn,  §  102. 

VOL.  I.  40 


314  HISTORi^    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  84. 

Koppe  and  Gesenius.  Liturgical  notes  in  the  margin, 
also,  have  come  into  the  text,  as,  perhaps,  fT'-^^ibn ." 

[Such  explanative  scholia  are  the  following  :  Isa.  xl.  7, 
"  Truly  the  people  is  grass,"  according  to  Jahn,  and  the 
number  50,000,  in  1  Sam.  vi.  19,  which  alarmed  Tin- 
dal  and  Voltaire  so  much.  So,  perhaps,  1  Sam.  xvii.  12 
-—31,  41—50,  55—58,  xviii.  1—5,  9—11, 17—19,  came 
into  the  text  through  the  same  channel.  Originally  they 
were  not  in  the  Seventy,  but  were  added  by  Origen 
from  Theodotion,  and  the  other  Greek  translators  of 
the  second  century  after  Christ.]* 

§  84. 

2.    Falsification  by  Design. 

The  charge  has  often  been  brought  that  the  Jews 
have  falsified  the  text.  But  the  fact  cannot  be  proved. 
Sometimes  Jerome  seems  to  accuse  them.  "  We  hold 
it  to  be  uncertain  whether  the  Seventy  added  the 
words  every  man  and  in  all  to  Deut.  xxvii.  26,  or 
whether    they    were   in    the    old    Hebrew,    and   have 

been   erased    by   the    Jews While   reading    the 

Hebrew  volume  of  the  Samaritans  with  reference  to 
this,  I  found  1d5  was  written  in  the  text,  agreeing 
with  the  Seventy.  Therefore  it  was  in  vain  that  the 
Jews  took  it  away,  so  that  they  might  not  seem  to  lie 
under  the  curse  if  they  did  not  fulfil  all  which  is 
written  ;  for  the  more  ancient  writings  of  both  nations 
bear  witness  that  it  was  placed  there."  But  again,  in 
Jes.  chap,  vi.,  he  says,  "  If  any  one  should  say  the  He- 

"  BeHhoUU,  p.  256. 

*  [See  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xii.  p.  196,  and  xx.  p.  31.  KtnnicoU,  1.  c. 
p.  407.     Jahn,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  479,  sqq.] 


^  84.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  315 

brew  books  were  falsified  by  the  Jews,  let  him  listen  to 
what  Origen  has  to  answer  to  this  question  in  the 
eightli  volume  of  his  explanations  of  Esaias,  namely, 
Our  Lord  and  the  apostles  (who  accuse  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  of  other  crimes)  would  never  have  been  silent 
respecting  this,  which  was  the  greatest  of  all.  But  if 
it  should  be  said  the  Hebrew  books  were  falsified  after 
the  coming  of  the  Lord,  and  the  preaching  of  the  apos- 
tles, I  cannot  refrain  from  laughter,  that  the  Savior,  and 
evangelists,  and  apostles,  should  have  produced  tes- 
timonies which  the  Jews  were  afterwards  able  to 
falsify.'"' 

"  Hieron.  Corn,  in  Gal.  iii.  10 : Incertum  habemus,  utrum   LXX. 

interpretes  addiderint  5  Mos.  xxvii.  26,  omnis  homo  et  in  omnibus,  an  in 

veteri  Hebrseo  ita  fuerit  et  postea  a  Judfeis  deletum  sit Q,uam  ob 

causam  Samaritanorum  Hebrtea  volumina  relegens  inveni  ^5  scriptum  esse 
et  cum  LXX.  interpretibus  concordare.  Frustra  igitur  illud  tulerunt  Judfei, 
ne  viderentur  esse  sub  maledicto,  si  non  possent  omnia  complere,  quse 
scripta  sunt :  cum  antiquiores  alterius  quoque  gentis  litterae  id  positum 
fuisse  testentur. 

Joseph,  c.  Ap.  i.  8,  (§  15,  b.)  Hieron.  Com.  in  Jes.  cap.  vi. :  Quod  si  ali- 
quis  dixerit,  Hebraeos  libros  postea  a  Judeeis  esse  falsatos,  audiat  Origenem, 
quid  in  octavo  volumine  explanationum  Esaise  huic  respondeat  quaestiuncu- 
Ise  :  quod  nunquam  Dominus  et  apostoli,  qui  csetera  crimina  arguunt  in 
scribis  et  Pharisfflis,  de  hoc  crimine,  quod  erat  maximum,  reticuissent. 
Sin  autem  dixerint  post  adventum  Domini  Salvatoris  et  prsedicationem 
apostolorum  libros  Hebrseos  fuisse  falsatos,  cachinnum  tenere  non  potero, 
ut  Salvator  et  evangelistae  et  apostoli  ita  testimonia  protulerint,  ut  Judsei 
postea  falsaturi  erant  See  this  charge  brought  against  the  Koran,  (Hot- 
tinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  125,)  by  Is.  Vossius  (de  LXX.  int  p.  18,  sqq.  Compare 
Append,  p.  68,  sqq.)  Will.  Ifliiston,  (Essay  towards  restoring  the  true  Text 
of  O.  T. ;  Lond.  1772.)  See  Rosenmilllei;  1.  c,  and  Carpzov,  Crit  sac.  iii. 
p.  958,  sqq.,  and  Kennicott,  (diss.  ii.  1,  p.  17,  sqq.,  and  Diss.  Gen.  §  27,)  on 
account  of  Deut,  xxvii.  4. 

Against  their  corrupthig  it  wilfully,  see  Bellarmine,  De  Verbo  Dei,  ii.  2,  7. 
Glassius,  De  Textus  Heb.  in  V.  T.  Puritate,  in  Bauer,  Crit.  sac.  p.  76,  102, 
186.  Cappel.  Crit  sac.  i.  p.  1,  sqq.  Carpzov,  p.  109,  sqq.  According  to 
Eichhom,  §  95,  it  is  probable  they  have  corrupted  only  Ps.  xxii.  17,  and  Isa. 
xix.  18,  at  the  most.  [^Carpzov  admits  there  are  faults  in  each  of  the  MSS.  of 
the  O.  T.,  but  maintains  that  all  the  MSS.  noio  extard,  when  taken  together. 


316  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  84. 

At  the  utmost,  this  charge  lias  the  appearance  of 
probability  only  during  the  period  that  has  elapsed  since 
the  origin  of  Christianity,  and  here  it  is  rebutted  by  the 
history  of  the  text. 

["  Since  we  have  so  little  reason,"  says  Eichhorn,  "  to 
call  in  question  the  testimony  of  Josephus  as  to  the  great 
veneration  which  the  Jews  were  wont  to  pay  to  their 
sacred  national  writings,  it  is  plain  that  no  one,  up 
to  his  time,  would  venture  to  alter  them  by  additions  or 
omissions  ;  and  since  there  are  evident  marks  that,  after 
his  time,  they  copied  the  text  of  the  sacred  books  with 
scrupulous  carefulness,  it  follows  that  the  greatest  part 
of  their  books  are  free  from  intentional  alterations. 
Conjecture  can  go  no  farther  than  to  suppose  that  some 
Jews,  for  private  ends,  have  corrupted  certain  passages."" 
"  Before  the  birth  of  Christ,  they  would  have  made  no 
intentional  falsification,  as  there  was  no  occasion  for  it. 
But  this  charge  is  brought  against  the  Palestine  Jews, 
that  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  they  changed  the  word 
Gerizim  for  Ebal,  m  Deut.  xxvii.  4;  and  o';i'io  i-^s,  the 
city  of  the  sun,  Isa.  xix.  18,  for  ^^J?."!  "i"'?,  the  city  of  de- 
struction. They  are  charged  with  making  the  first  of 
these  falsifications  out  of  hatred  to  the  Samaritans,  to 

contain  the  genuine  text.  He  distributes  all  who  are  of  a  contrary  opinion 
into  two  classes  —  1.  The  professed  enemies  of  g-ospel  truth.  2.  Critics 
without  knowledge  or  prudence,  or  who  are  maliciously  skilled  in  criticism, 
and  wish  to  brand  the  Scripture  as  corrupt,  and  pierce  its  side.  They  are 
divided  into  Mohamedans,  Papists,  and  Socinians.  He  places  Spinoza 
(Tr.  Theol.  pol.  ix,  p,  192)  at  the  head  of  those  who  assert  that  the  writings 
of  the  O.  T.  are  too  corrupt  to  be  trusted.  Peyrere  followed  Spinoza,  (Sys- 
tem. Prffi-Adamitarum,  pt  i.  lib.  iv.  p.  172,)  and  said,  "God  suffered  the 
autographs  to  perish,  and  only  yeiy  imperfect  copies  to  come  down  to  us." 
Joh.  Morinus  contended  (Exercit.  in  Pent.  Sam.)  tliat  the  Samaritan  was  the 
authentic  text.  On  this  question,  see  L?trf.  Cappellics,  Clericus,  Is.  Vossitis, 
Rich.  Simon,  &ic.] 

"   [See  Eichhorn,  §  95,  d.] 


^  84.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  317 

prove  that  the  curse  was  uttered  on  Gerizim,  the  site  of 
the  Samaritan  temple,  and  the  second  out  of  hostility  to 
their  Egyptian  brethren,  and  to  cast  a  reproach  on  the 
city  (Leontopolis)  in  which  the  Egyptian  Jews  had 
built  their  temple. 

"  But  it  is  plain  they  are  innocent  in  both  cases.  The 
altar  was  to  be  erected  on  that  mountain  where  the 
Hebrew  nation  swore,  with  sacrifices  and  imprecations, 
to  observe  the  Law.  This  was  Mount  Ebal ;  and  the 
Hebrew- Jewish  text  Justly  commands  that  the  altar 
shall  be  built  there.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  on  that 
mountain  where  the  altar  was  to  be  built  according  to  the 
Samaritan  text,  —  that  is,  on  Mount  Gerizim,  —  where 
the  blessings  were  pronounced,  which  the  people  did  not 
swear  to  by  sacrifices,  but  to  which  they  only  res|X)nded 
'  Amen,  Amen,'  no  altar  was  to  be  erected.  A  wilful 
corruption  of  the  second  passage  is  still  more  incon- 
ceivable ;  for  D'lnn  ^^^  is  a  literal  translation  of  Leon- 
topolis, the  place  where  the  Egyptian  temple  was  built. 

"  After  the  birth  of  Christ,  perhaps  a  polemic  zeal 
might  seduce  the  Jews  to  corrupt  those  passages  which 
the  Christians  used  as  proof-texts  in  the  controversy  re- 
specting the  Messiah,  so  that  they  would  prove  nothing, 
or  nothing  in  favor  of  the  Christians.  But  here  they 
would  alter  only  such  passages  as  did  not  speak  de- 
cisively of  the  Messiah,  and  would  leave  unaltered  the 
most  obvious.  But  now,  if  we  examine  those  passages 
on  which  the  charge  has  been  rested,  their  present 
appearance  may  be  far  more  naturally  explained  without 
this  supposition.  Finally,  the  Fathers  who  charge  them 
with  falsifications,  only  reproach  them  with  corrupting 
the  Alexandrian  version,  and  not  the  original  text." 
The  only  passage  in  which  there  is  ground  for  conjec- 
turing the  Jews  have  corrupted  the  text,  for  the  sake  of 


318  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [§84. 

avoiding  a  prophetic  reference  to  Jesus,  is  Ps.  xxii.  17, 
(16,)  where  iisi  is  changed  to  i-i^i^,  so  that  the  sense 
is  changed  from  they  pierced,  to  like  a  lion.  But  some 
of  the  most  learned  Jews,  in  the  Masora,  admit  the 
former  is  the  better  reading.] " 

Through  the  uncritical  but  innocent  manner  of  treat- 
ing  the  text,  some  have  inserted  easier,  apparently  more 
just,  and  less  offensive,  readings  in  the  place  of  the 
genuine  text.*  They  have  corrected  what  they  con- 
ceived to  be  errors,  which,  perhaps,  were  not ;  for 
example.  Gen.  xi.  31,  the  Samaritan  reads  s'^iztii  instead 
of  154211;"  2  Sam.  viii.  17,  "  Zadok,  the  son  of  Ahitub, 
and  Ahimelech,  the  son  of  Abiathar,"  instead  of  "Zadok 
and  Abiathar,  the  son  of  Ahimelech,  the  son  of  Ahitub."'^ 

They  filled  places  where  there  seemed  a  chasm  — 
Gen.  iv.  4,  where  an  addition  has  been  made  by  the 
Samaritan  and  other  versions,"  though  some  consider  it  a 
scholion.  They  altered  the  text  to  make  it  conform  to 
certain  preconceived  opinions  of  their  own  ;  for  exam- 
ple, in  Deut.  xxiii.  3,  ^t  tn?a  instead  of  ^T)3?a  /  They 
made  the  text  conform  to  the  parallel  passages.  Thus, 
perhaps,  the  reading  "iTajJ  fi>,  [strength  to  his  people,]  Ps. 

"  [Eichhorn,  §  111,  on  this  reading  in  Ps.  xxii.  17.  See  Kennicott,  Dis- 
sertation, vol.  i.  p.  499,  sq.     Diss.  Gen.  p.  345,  448.     J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  loc] 

^  E.  g.  1  Cliron.  ii.  48,  nj?!;,  and  Codd.  MTb;; ;  Num.  xxvii.  7,  Bri'^r?,' 
Codd.  in^ns;  Ps.  xxxvi.  2,  ^alb,  Codd.  Verss.  iaV,  Gen.  ii.  2,  ^?^?"in» 
Samar.,  LXX.,  Syr.  '^Tatsri;  Jud.  xviii.  30,  n-J:;3?2  for  TO?3 ;  Gen.  xx.  13, 
xxi.  53,  XXXV.  7.  Ex.  xxii.  9,  where  ^iniH  is  construed  in  the  plural,  the  Sam. 
puts  the  sing.  Ex.  xv.  3,  n>an^^  ID'^S  (of  God)  Samar.  '^  "l"i33.  Euphem- 
ism of  the  Samar.  Deut.  xxv.  12,  xxviii.  12,  the  Keris,  (§  89,  §  122,  for 
other  examples.) 

'   Voter,  m  loc.  <*  Hitzig,  p.  146. 

'    Gesenius,  Pent  Sam.  p.  62,  sq. 

^  Bruns,  in  Eichhorri's  Rep.  vol.  xv.  p.  171.  Michaelis,  Mos.  Recht.  pt.  ii. 
p.  435,  note.     Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  61. 


^  85.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  319 

xxviii.  8,  instead  of  ^^)  ^i',  [strength  to  them,]  arose  from 
Ps.  xxix.  11. 

[Eichhorn  enumerates  eighteen  sources  of  errors  in 
text,  namely,  1,  from  passages  which  occur  twice  in  the 
Scripture  ;  2,  from  scholia  inserted  in  the  text ;  3,  alle- 
gorical explanations  written  in  the  margin,  and  ac- 
cidentally inserted  in  the  text ;  4,  alterations  after  the 
Targums,  &c. ;  5,  conjecture  ;  6,  designed  falsification  ;" 

7,  transposition    of    letters,     words,    and    sentences ; 

8,  errors    of  sight  a  source  of  very  numerous  errors  ; 

9,  errors  of  hearing  ;  10,  the  habit  of  not  reading  the 
words  as  they  were  written,  particularly  in  the  three 
names  of  God,  and  the  quiescent  letters  ;  11,  errors  of 
memory;  12,  arbitrary  use  of  the  matres  lectionis ; 
13,  acquaintance  with  other  Oriental  languages,  lead- 
ing to  a  confusion  of  orthography  ;  14,  mistakes  from 
misunderstanding  the  abbreviations  ;  15,  false  division 
of  words;  16,  mistaking  the  custodes  linearum — letters 
put  to  fill  up  a  line  ;  17,  words  of  a  similar  termina 
tion;   18,  fondness  for  a  favorite  manuscript.] 

^  85. 

FATE  OF  THE  TEXT  BEFORE  THE  CANON  WAS  CLOSED. 

The  Hebrew  text  encountered  its  most  unfortunate 
fate  while  the  single  parts  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  in  circulation,  each  as  a  separate  whole, 
before  the  collection  of  the  Old  Testament  had  acquired 
a  certain  respect  and  sacredness.  The  transcribers 
allowed  themselves  to  proceed  with  the  books  before 
them  —  which  were  often  anonymous  —  as  if  they  were 
their  own  productions,  and  so  alter  the  text  at  their  own 

•  See  above,  p.  314,  sqq.  *  [Eichhorn,  §  93—106.] 


320  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [§  85. 

discretion.  Examples  of  this  kind  of  treatment  may  be 
seen  in  the  note."  Compilers  and  revisers  made  arbi- 
trary insertions  in  the  works  of  earlier  writers,  and 
frequently  introduced  what  was  entirely  foreign  to  the 
text,  as  it  will  be  shown  in  the  introduction  to  the 
Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Chronicles,  and  Jeremiah. 

[Perhaps  Doctor  De  Wette  states  the  corruption  of 
the  text  by  transcribers  in  terms  stronger  than  the  case 
requires.  The  ])salms  mentioned  in  the  note  diifer, 
indeed,  from  one  another ;  but  the  difference  is  scarcely 
to  be  ascribed  entirely  to  the  carelessness  or  caprice 
of  the  copyists  and  interpreters.  At  least,  there  is 
another  hypothesis,  which  removes  some  of  the  diffi- 
culties. It  may  be  supposed  that,  in  some  few  cases, 
the  author  retouched  his  own  work ;  we  may  then  have 
two  readings  in  parallel  passages,  and  both  genuine. 
On  this  supposition,  some  explain  the  difference  between 
the  odes  in  the  historical  books,  and  the  same  pieces 
published  in  the  Psalms. 

Those  passages  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles 
which  relate  to  the  same  events,  and  are  so  similar  with 
some  chapters  in  the  Prophets,  seem  to  be  accounts  of 
the  same  events,  written  by  different  hands.  The  later 
writer  had  the  work  of  his  predecessor  before  him,  and 
adopted  his  opinions  or  words,  so  far  as  he  understood 
its  language,  or  as  it  suited  his  purpose.     Late  writers 


"  Comp.  Ps.  xiv.  and  liii. ;  Ps.  xl.  13,  sqq.,  and  LXX. ;  Ps.  xviii.  and  2  Sam. 
xxii. ;  Ps.  cviii.  and  Ivii.  8 — 12,  and  Ix.  7 — 14 ;  Ps.  cv.  and  1  Ch.  xvi.  8 — 22 ; 
Ps,  cxvi.  and  1  Ch.  xvi.  23 — 33 ;  Isa.  xxxvii. — xxxviii.  and  2  Kings  xviii. — 
xix. ;  Jer.  lii.  and  2  Kings  xxiv. ;  1  Sam.  xxiii.  8 — 31,  and  1  Ch.  xi.  10 — 47 ; 
Ezra  ii.  and  Neh.  vii.  6,  sqq. 

See  these  various  readings  collected  in  Cappetlus,  Vogel,  i.  30,  sqq.,  Eich- 
horn,  §  139,  b,  and  Bauer,  Crit.  sac.  p.  236,  sqq.  [See  a  list  of  the  parallel 
passages  in  Appendix,  GLj 


^  85.]  HISTORV    OF    THE    TEXT.  .321 

borrowed  from  their  predecessors,  in  old  times  as  in 
modern  dajs.  The  different  forms  which  devotional 
poems  are  made  to  assume,  are  well  known.  An  ode 
might  be  changed  in  form  to  suit  the  liturgical  purpose 
to  which  some  one  wished  to  appropriate  it.  The  col- 
lectors of  the  Psalms  maj  sometimes  have  recast  an  old 
piece.  The  errors  of  copyists  are  scarcely  an  adequate 
source  of  the  variations  in  the  choruses  of  Euripides. 

Eichhorn  wisely  observes  that  kindred  passages  may 
differ  from  one  another  without  giving  us  occasion  to 
complain  of  ancient  times,  or  of  the  carelessness  of 
transcribers.  By  comparing  these  kindred  passages, 
discoveries  may  be  made  which  are  important  for  both 
higher  and  lower  criticisms.  In  respect  to  the  former, 
we  may  ascertain  how  some  books,  or  single  passages, 
originated,  and  in  what  manner  old  works  were 
wrought  over  in  more  modern  times.  In  respect  to 
lower  criticism,  we  may  obtain  facts  from  the  history 
of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  arguments  to  show  that  many 
striking  errors  extend  back  to  the  remotest  times. 

"  In  judging  upon  the  diversities  between  the  parallel 
passages,  much  depends  upon  their  authorship,  whether 
they  proceeded  from  the  original  author  of  the  similar 
passage,  and  so  are  the  results  of  a  revision  he  has  him- 
self made  of  an  earlier  work.  We  are  to  inquire,  not 
merely  whether,  in  the  revision,  the  original  design  and 
object  remained  the  same,  and  the  original  text  was 
only  made  more  pleasing  by  more  agreeable  and  choice 
expressions,  and  single  additions;  but,  also,  whether 
the  two  texts  had  not  a  different  design.  Since  an 
earlier  composition  may  be  used  for  a  new  object,  why 
might  not  the  original  author  have  occasion  to  return  to, 
and  make  a  new  use  of  his  own  work  ? Similar 

VOL.    I.  41 


322  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  85. 

texts  differ  from  one  another  merely  in  rival  readings, 
better  or  worse,  or  synonymous,  and,  therefore,  we  must 
renounce   the   hope    of  making   any  decisive  judgment 
whether  the  original  author  merely  rewrought  his  earlier 
text  in  a  new  edition,  or  some  other  writer  has  done  it. 
We  must  be  satisfied  with  a  critical  probability ;  for  the 
condition  of  the  text  rarely  allows  a  final  decision  of 
this  kind.     Cases  are  not  rare  where  the  first  expression 
is  stronger,   more   natural,  and   better,  than   one  which 
the  amending  hand  of  the  author  afterwards  inserts  in 
its  place.     On  the  contrary,  a  stranger  sometimes  sees 
the  faults  or  imperfections  of  a  piece   more  justly  than 
the  original  author ;  and  the    best   improvements  often 
proceed    from    another    hand.     Finally,  equivalent    ex- 
pressions—  which  are  often  changed  to  suit  the  pertness 
or   wisdom    of  the    copyist  —  may   originate    with    the 
author  himself,  and  the   exchange  of  the   one   for  the 
other  may  seem  to  hira  an  improvement.     Every  writer 
who  is  attentive  to  his  own  mental  action,  will  remem- 
ber that  certain  expressions   have   pleased  him  at  one 
time    more    than    another,  and    he    has    inserted    them 
instead  of  others  which  were  more  usual  w  ith  him,  and 
yet  without  being  able  to  tell  why  he  prefers  them."]" 

The  different  original  texts  of  the  LXX.,  in  Jere- 
miah'' and  Daniel,"  would  also  be  monuments  of  this 
uncritical  treatment,  if  there  were  sufficient  proof  of  the 
fact,  as  many  maintain  that  there  were  several  originals 
of  these  books. 

»  [Eichhorn,  §  139,  b.]  »  See  §  219,  sqq,  '  See  §  258. 


^  86.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  323 

^   86. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE    SAMARITAN-ALEXANDRIAN    RECENSION    OF 
THE   PENTATEUCH. 

The  origin  of  that  form  of  the  text  which  is  found 
in  the  Samaritan  manuscripts  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
which  is  related  to  the  text  of  the  LXX.,  is  a  matter  of 
the  highest  importance  in  the  history  of  the  text  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

It  is  still  a  subject  of  controversy  at  what  time  the 
Pentateuch  came  into  the  hands  of  the  Samaritans. 
Some  think  this  took  place  before  the  separation  of  the 
two  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah." 

[A  few  words  may  be  said  on  the  history  of  this  form 
of  the  Hebrew  text. 

Before  the  first  quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century,  it 
was  only  known  by  the  citation  of  the  early  Fathers ; 
it  was  doubtful  that  a  single  copy  was  in  existence. 
But  in  1616,  Petrus  a  Valle  purchased  a  complete 
copy  of  it,  which  was  sent  to  the  library  of  the  Oratory 
at  Paris,  1623.  It  was  printed  in  the  Paris  Polyglot. 
About  the  same  time,  (1620 — 1630,)  Usher  found  six 
copies  in  the  East.  After  this  time,  it  was  frequently 
printed,  and  criticised.  Kennicott  caused  eighteen  Sa- 
maritan manuscripts  to  be  collated  for  his  work. 

These  manuscripts  are  written  without   vowels,  ac- 


"  Jo.  Morinus,  Exercit.  eccless.  in  utrumque  Samaritanorum  Pent,  (Par. 
1631,  4to.,  p.  62,)  and  the  Epistle  to  Ant.  Van  Dale,  in  his  Dissertation, 
p.  691.  Walton,  Prolegg.  xi.  9,  11.  Cappellus,  vol.  i.  p.  576.  fVhiston, 
An  Essay,  &c.  p.  48,  164.  Carpzov,  Grit  sac.  p.  602,  sqq,  Kennicott,  Diss, 
ii.  p.  108—113.  /.  D.  Michaelis,  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.  p.  315.  Eichhorn,  §  383, 
sq.  Bauer,  Grit  sac.  p.  330.  Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  412,  sqq.  Bertholdt,  vol.  i. 
p.  471,  and  an  anonymous  writer  in  BengeFs  Archiv.  vol.  iii.  p.  616. 


324  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^•^''^'• 

cents,  or  any  of  the  Hebrew  diacritical  marks,  thougli 
they  have  others  of  their  own.  The  text  is  divided  into 
shorter  sentences  than  the  Jewish  Parashes.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  determine  the  age  of  these  manuscripts ;  but  no 
one  of  them  can  be  older,  perhaps,  than  the  thirteenth 
century.  Their  modernness  led  Tychsen  to  the  strange 
theory  that  the  Pentateuch  was  first  copied  into  Samaritan 
letters  at  a  recent  date  —  in  the  10th  or  12th  century." 

Since  this  is  a  matter  of  great  importance,  I  shall 
give  the  opinions  and  arguments  of  two  eminent  critics, 
who  take  a  different  view  of  the  subject. 

Carpzov*  divides  the  opinions  of  his  predecessors 
and  contemporaries,  on  this  difficult  question,  into  six 
classes :  — 

1.  That  of  Morinus,  Cappellus,  and  Whiston  —  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  originally  written  by  Moses,  in  the 
present  Samaritan  characters.  The  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch, therefore,  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  Hebrew. 

2.  The  impostor  Dositheus,  who  pretended  to  be  the 
Messiah,  transcribed  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  into  the 
Samaritan  characters,  and  made  some  alterations,  to  suit 
his  own  designs.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Usher."  To 
this  Walton"^  pertinently  replied,  that  Dositheus — who 
was  so  little  feivored  by  the  Samaritans,  and  a  man  of  so 
little  note  that  Josephus  does  not  once  name  him  — 
could  not  have  changed  all  the  copies  of  the  Pentateuch 
in  Samaria. 

3.  The  Israelitish  Priest,  sent  by  the  Assyrian  king 

"  [See  much  curious  information  on  this  subject,  in  Eichharn,  §  378,  381, 
and  the  authors  he  cites.] 

"  [P.  600.] 

'  [See  the  Letter  to  Cappellus,  p.  215,  at  the  end  of  his  Syntagmis  de 
LXX.] 

^  [Proleg.  xi.  11,  p.  370.] 


^86.]  IIISTOUV     OF    THE    TEXT.  325 

to  teach  the  new  settlers  in  Palestine  "  the  manner  of 
the  God  of  the  Land,"  (2  Kings  xvii.  27,)  composed 
the  Pentateuch  in  these  characters.  This  is  supposed 
to  have  taken  place  after  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah." 

4.  When  the  Samaritans  built  their  temple,  they 
received  from  the  Jews  their  sacred  books,  and  copied 
them  in  the  Samaritan  letters.  The  variations  between 
the  two  texts  arise  from  the  carelessness  of  the  tran- 
scriber ;  a  few  alterations,  however,  were  made  design- 
edly.    Richard  Simon  proposes  this  theory.* 

5.  Van  Dale  thinks  the  moral  and  ceremonial  pre- 
cepts of  the  Law  were  brought  to  the  Samaritans  by 
the  priest  mentioned  above,  (2  Kings  xvii.  27,)  and  the 
entire  Pentateuch  in  the  Samaritan  characters  after  the 
time  of  Ezra. 

6.  The  common  opinion  of  Protestants,  says  Carp- 
zov,  is,  that  this  priest  carried  from  Assyria  a  true  copy 
of  the  Pentateuch,  written  in  the  present  Hebrew, 
and  transcribed  it  in  the  Samaritan  letters ;  a  few  errors 
stole  in  through  the  carelessness  of  the  scribe. 

Such  is  the  opinion  of  Jahn,  one  of  the  most  learned 
and  cautious  of  the  Germans,  and  especially  trustworthy 
in  what  relates  to  antiquities.  He  says,  after  the  separa- 
tion of  the  kingdom,  (975  B.  C.,)  the  Pentateuch,  at  least, 
was  preserved  among  the  ten  tribes,  and  continued  in  cir- 
culation by  new  transcriptions.  There  was  scarcely  any 
harmony  between  the  two  nations,  and  eternal  hostility 
prevailed,  at  least  between  the  priests  of  the  golden 
calf  in  Israel  and  those  of  Jehovah  in  Judah.  It  is 
inconceivable  that  copies  should  pass  from  one  kingdom 
to  the  other,  or  that  they  should  be  altered  from  each 


[Sentimens  de  quelques  Theologiens,  lettre  vi.  p.  129,  sqq.] 
[Hiet.  cvit.  V.  T.  i.  c.  10,  p.  65.] 


326  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^86. 

Other.  Both  copies,  therefore,  would  remain  unadul- 
terated. When  the  ten  tribes  were  carried  away  from 
their  land,  (740  or  722  B.  C.,)  the  priests,  at  least, 
carried  their  copies  with  them.  The  foreign  colonists, 
who  were  sent  into  the  land  by  Shahnanassar  and  Es- 
sarhaddon,  united  with  the  Israelites  who  remained 
behind,  and  constituted  one  people,  called  Samaritans. 
But  these  godless  strangers  were  much  disturbed  by 
lions,  which  increased  on  account  of  the  small  number 
of  inhabitants  in  the  country.  They  explained  this  as 
if  the  God  of  the  land,  whom  they  did  not  worship,  had 
sent  this  plague  upon  them.  So  the  king  of  Assyria,  at 
their  request,  sent  them  an  Israelitish  priest  to  instruct 
them  in  the  Mosaic  religion.  This  priest  made  his 
abode  at  Bethel,  the  former  seat  of  a  golden  calf. 
Doubtless  he  was  one  of  the  priests  of  the  golden  calf," 
who  certainly  did  not  borrow  his  books  of  Moses,  which 
he  needed  in  instructing  the  people,  from  the  kingdom 
of  Judah,  but  carried  his  own  copy  with  him,  and  circu- 
lated it  by  new  transcriptions.  In  this  manner,  the 
Pentateuch  may  have  been  preserved  among  the  Samar- 
itans, independently  of  the  Jews ;  for,  at  first,  while 
they  worshipped  idols,  they  would  take  nothing  from 
Judah  ;  and,  after  the  exile,  the  bitterest  hatred  arose 
and  increased  between  the  Samaritans  and  the  new 
colony  of  returned  Jews.  If  any  one  would  add  that, 
under  Hezekiah,  or  Josiah,  or,  after  the  exile,  under 
Sanballat,  when  the  apostate  Jewish    priest  Manasseh 

[The  remarks  of  this  eminent  critic  go  very  smoothly  up  to  this  point, 
but  no  farther ;  for  it  is  not  even  hinted  in  the  Bible  that  this  priest  brought 
any  books;  the  supposition  that  he  brought  his  own  copy  of  the  Pentateuch,  in 
its  present  form,  is  perfecthj  graluitoiLS.  "  He  taught  them  how  they  should 
fear  the  Lord,"  says  the  writer,  and  adds,  "  But  the  people  made  gods  of 
their  own."     Here  is  no  allusion  to  any  copy  of  the  Pentateuch.] 


^  86.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  327 

went  over  to  them,  and  became  their  high  priest,  he 
carried  copies  of  the  Pentateuch  from  the  Jews,  it 
would  be  inconceivable  that  they  should  not  take  other 
books,  also,  such  as  the  Psalms  of  David,  some  Prophets, 
and,  in  particular,  the  book  of  Joshua,  by  which  they 
might  have  spared  themselves  the  trouble  of  forging  one 
or  two  unoenuine  books  of  Joshua." 

o 

Eichhorn,  who  seems  naturally  to  belong  on  the  other 
side  of  the  question,  attempts  to  construct  a  still  stronger 
argument  than  that  of  Jahn. 

There  must  have  been  copies  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
the  hands  of  the  priests  of  Israel,  or  how  could  they  teach 
the  people  ?  When  the  priests  forsook  Israel,  as  they 
did  under  Jeroboam,  (2  Ch.  xi.  13 — 17,)  all  their  copies 
of  the  Law  would  not  be  lost.  The  Mosaic  religion 
was  still  honored  in  Israel,  as  in  Judah,  though  the 
worship  of  Baal  often  prevailed.  (2  Kings  iii.  2.  x.  21  — 
28.)  The  school  of  the  prophets  at  Bethel,  and  the  pious 
men,  like  Elisha,  continually  arising,  would  keep  alive 
the  remembrance  of  Moses.  Hosea  says  they  had  writ- 
ten laws,*  (viii.  12,)  and  the  writers  of  Kings  seem  to 
suppose  they  had  the  same  law  with  the  inhabitants  of 
Judah.  (2  Kings  xviii.  12.) 

Now,  continues  his  argument,  admitting  the  Israelites 
received  the  Law  after  the  separation,  it  would  not  have 
the  force  of  a  law,  and  the  king  would  not  give  it  his 
sanction.  But  the  Law  was  still  observed  for  one  hun- 
dred years  after  the  captivity  of  the  ten  tribes.     Some 


"  [Jahn,  411—413.] 

''  [Hosea,  indeed,  speaks  of  written  laws,  (perhaps  only  hypothetically,  as 
the  LXX.  reads,)  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  referred  to  the  Pentateuch  in 
its  present  form.  No  one  doubts  there  were  written  laws  current  in  the 
time  of  Hosea ;  but  can  this  verse  have  any  weight  in  establishing  the 
existence  of  the  present  form  of  the  Pentateuch,  at  that  date  ?] 


328  HISTORY     OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  86. 

of  the  inhabitants  of  Israel  went  up  to  keep  the  Pass- 
over under  Josiah.  (2  Ch.  xxxv.  18.)  Therefore  they 
must  have  had  a  copy  of  the  Law.  The  priest  whom 
Essarhaddon  sent  must  likewise  have  had  a  copy  of  the 
Law ;  and  the  fact  that  the  Samaritans  wished  to  join 
with  the  Jews  in  building  the  second  temple,  (Ezra  iv. 
1 — 4,)  shows  they  observed  the  same  Law  with  them. 
Besides,  if  they  had  received  it  from  the  Jews  at  this 
time,  would  not  the  historians  mention  the  circumstance  ? 
Some  say  Manasseh,  the  apostate  priest,  brought  it;  but 
this  story  is  founded  on  the  narrative  of  Josephus,  which 
is  not  trustworthy,  for  he  makes  him  live  one  hundred 
years  too  late.  Besides,  there  is  no  reason  for  sup- 
posing it  was  brought  by  Manasseh.]" 

But  this  theory,  that  it  was  composed  before  the 
separation  of  the  kingdoms,  is  opposed,  L  by  the  circum- 
stance that  the  Pentateuch  was  composed  and  compiled 
at  a  more  recent  date,  —  a  fact  which  is  supported  by  the 
strongest  critical  arguments,  and,  in  particular,  by  the 
entire  analogy  of  the  history  of  Hebrew  literature, — 
and,  IL  by  the  idolatrous  state  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  and  that  of  the  Samaritans,  (before  the  erection  of 
the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,)  which  does  not  allow 
us  to  suppose  the  existence  of  a  written  law  like  that  of 
the  Pentateuch. 

Again :  the  above  theory  has  nothing  in  its  favor, 
except, 

"  [The  best  work  on  this  subject,  in  our  language,  known  to  the  trans- 
lator, is  that  of  Professor  Stuart,  in  N.  A.  Review  for  April,  1826,  reprinted 
in  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  ii.  p.  681,  sq.  He  comes  to  different  conclusions  from 
those  of  Doctor  De  Wette. 

But  see,  who  will,  Hengstenberg,  Beitrage die  Autlientie  des  Pent 

p.  1,  sqq.  He  says  himself,  Der  Ton  in  diesem  Buche  wird  Vielen  manch- 
mal  nicht  zusagen,  and  it  is  very  true.  But  he  says  he  has  written  his  hard 
words  rather  in  sorrow  than  in  anger,  and  dares  expunge  nothing.] 


^  86. J  HISTORY     OF    TilK    TEXT.  329 

I.  The  national  hatred  of  the  two  people.  But  there 
were  many  exceptions  to  this  hatred  ;  and  sometimes  it 
ceased  altogether.'' 

II.  The  fact  that  the  Samaritans  accepted  no  other 
book  of  the  Old  Testament;  but  this  can  be  satisfacto- 
rily explained  in  a  different  manner.''     And, 

III.  The  old  Hebrew  writing  character  of  the  Samari- 
tans, (although  this  differed  somewhat  from  the  original 
character.)  But  it  is  possible  they  received  this  long- 
after  the  exile,  since  the  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  made  use  of  it  even  under  the  Maccabees.'' 

[The  above  remarks  of  the  author  are  too  brief  and 
comprehensive  to  be  clear  and  convincing  to  an  Ameri- 
can reader ;  but  in  the  work  referred  to,  he  has  treated 
the  subject  in  detail.  From  that  and  other  sources  I 
derive  what  follows :  —  The  history  of  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  must  always  remain  obscure,  for  no  ancient 
writer  gives  any  account  of  it,  and  the  tradition  of  the 
Samaritans  that  it  was  made  in  the  thirteenth  year  of 
the  first  settlement  in  Canaan,  is  too  absurd  to  deserve 
notice.  We  can  never  attain  more  than  a  probable 
answer  to  the  question,  When  was  it  first  received  by 
the  Samaritans  ?  We  find  the  first  mention  of  it  in 
Origen  and  Jerome.'*  It  is,  indeed,  contended  that  the 
version  of  the  Seventy  was  made  from  a  Samaritan  man- 
uscript ;  but  the  most,  perhaps,  that  can  be  proved,  is, 
that  it  follows  a  manuscript  which  agrees  remarkably 
with   the   Samaritan   text,    in    some    places,    though   it 


"   Voter,  L  c.  iii.  626.    De  Wette,  Beit.  vol.  i.  p.  188. 

*   Gesenius,  Pent.  Sam.  p.  4,  [in  Appendix,  I.] 

"  Morinus  lays  great  stress  on  this,  (Ex.  ii. ;)  but  see  Hupfeld  in  Stud,  und 
Kritiken,  1830,  vol.  ii.  p.  280. 

^  [Montfaucon,  Hexap.  Origenis,  ad  Num.  xii.  1.  xxi  33.  xxxi.  21.  Je- 
rome, Prol.  ad  Reg.  Qusest.  in  Gen,  iv.  8.    Com.  in  Gal.  iii.  10.] 

VOL.  I.  42 


330  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  86. 

differs  widely  in  others.  But  even  if  this  codex  were 
used  by  the  Seventy,  the  fact  only  brings  us  down  to  the 
third  century  before  Christ. 

When  did  the  Samaritans  receive  it  ?  Many  critics 
have  been  led  to  embrace  the  opinions  of  Eichhorn  and 
Jahn,  from  the  alleged  difficulty  of  procuring  entrance 
for  the  Pentateuch  among  the  Samaritans,  after  the 
separation,  because  a  strong  religious  hatred  prevailed 
between  the  two  nations.  This  is  the  difficulty  which 
embarrasses  all  that  follows.  Before  the  separation, 
there  was  no  hatred  ;  and  when  that  event  took  place, 
it  was  not  caused  by  hatred  between  the  two  tribes  and 
the  ten.  The  latter  simply  desired  milder  laws ;  and 
before  the  death  of  Solomon,  a  prophet  of  Judah  had 
pointed  out  to  their  leader,  Jeroboam,  the  course  he  was 
to  pursue.  (1  Kings  xi.  28,  sqq.)  Before  the  time  of 
Solomon,  the  crown  had  been  elective ;  but  the  great 
power  of  David,  and  his  popularity,  enabled  him  to 
appoint  his  successor.  But  Solomon's  despotism,  luxu- 
ry, and  idolatry,  so  far  weakened  his  hold  on  the  people, 
that  it  was  not  very  difficult  for  the  ten  tribes,  on  the 
accession  of  Rehoboam,  either  to  make  terms  with  the 
monarch,  or  to  elect  a  new  one,  who  would  support  their 
interests.  They  are  forced  to  the  latter  alternative,  as 
the  prophet  had  said ;  but  the  only  change  made  in 
the  laws  is  this  —  unlevitical  priests  are  established,  and 
images  of  oxen  (probably  the  cherubim)  are  set  up 
at  Dan  and  Bethel.  There  is  no  deep  and  deadly 
hatred  between  the  nations,  and,  on  the  eve  of  a  battle, 
Shemaiah,  the  man  of  God,  forbids  the  army  of  Judah 
to  fight  against  their  brethren;  they  obey,  and  return 
home  without  striking  a  blow.  (1  Kings  xii.  21 — ^24.) 
Before  the  separation,  there   was    no  very  strong    tie 


^  86.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  331 

uniling  the  tribes,  and  after  that  event,  there  seems  to 
be  no  deep  hostility  between  the  rival  kingdoms.  They 
are  often  at  war,  it  is  true,  but  they  are  sometimes  allies. 
Jehoshaphat  and  Jehoram  go  out  togetlier  to  fight  the 
Moabites.  Jehu,  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat,  king  of  Judah, 
was  king  of  Samaria  twenty-eight  years ;  and  he  seems 
to  have  owed  his  accession  rather  to  the  Israelites  than 
to  his  own  friends  in  Jerusalem.  Had  there  been  that 
deadly  hatred  between  the  two  nations,  could  these 
events  have  taken  place  ?  The  religious  rites  in  the 
two  countries  did  not  differ  much.  Jeroboam  erected 
calves;  but  there  were  idols  even  in  Josiah's  time,  in 
the  great  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Idolatry  prevailed  in 
both  kingdoms,  and  perhaps  equally.  It  were  no  easy 
task  to  tell  which  was  the  most  idolatrous,  Rehoboam 
or  his  rival.  There  were  more  prophets  in  Israel  than 
in  Judah,  and  they  went  from  one  country  to  the  other. 
(1  Kings  xiii.)  Elijah,  an  Israelite,  in  a  solemn  sacrifice, 
considers  them  both  as  one  nation,  and  builds  an  altar 
of  twelve  stones,  (1  Kings  xviii.  31 ;)  and,  on  another 
occasion,  he  helps  the  king  of  Judah  in  preference  to 
the  king  of  Israel.  (2  Kings  iii.  14.)  Ahab  and  Jehosha- 
phat assemble  ail  the  prophets,  four  hundred  in  number, 
to  advise  them  in  their  joint  undertaking.  (1  Kings  xxii.) 
In  the  chapter  (2  Kings  xvii.)  which  treats  of  the  captivi- 
ty of  the  Israelites,  there  is  no  hatred  displayed  towards 
them,  and  nothing  like  a  tone  of  triumph  over  their  dis- 
tress is  heard  in  the  books  of  Kings.  Even  in  speaking 
of  the  Cuthites,  we  find  no  hatred  displayed.  But  a 
hostile  spirit  may  be  found  in  the  Chronicles,  written 
much  later.  There  was,  then,  nothing  to  prevent  the 
passage  of  the  Pentateuch  from  Judah  to  Israel,  when- 
ever its  materials  (probably  for  the  most  part  well  known 
before)  were  collected  into  the  proper  form. 


332  HISTORY    OF    THi:    THXT.  [V^^^»- 

When  Ezra  attempts  to  rebuild  tin;  temple,  (Ez.  iv. 
1 — 3,)  the  Samaritans  desire  to  join  in  the  work,  but 
are  repulsed,  and  then  oppose  the  building.  Nehemiah 
either  found  them  hostile  to  his  undertaking,  or  rendered 
them  his  foes  bj  his  own  conduct;  it  is  uncertain  Vvhich 
commenced  the  quarrel."  But  this,  at  least,  is  plain, 
that  there  was  no  religious  or  other  deep  hatred  between 
the  two  nations.  Here  the  history  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment closes,  and  we  must  follow  the  fluctuating  Jose- 
phus.  In  the  time  of  Darius  Nothus,  contemporary 
with  Nehemiah,*  lived  Sanballat,  the  prince  of  Samaria, 
who  was  desirous  of  keeping  on  good  terms  with  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem;  accordingly  he  gives  his 
daughter  in  marriage  to  Manasseh,  the  brother  of  the 
high  priest  of  Jerusalem.  But  the  high  priest  expels  his 
brother  on  account  of  this  marriage.  His  father-in-law 
builds  a  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  to  rival  that  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  makes  Manasseh  high  priest  of  Samaria. 
Other  priests,  who  were  entangled  in  similar  alliances, 
flee  to  Manasseh,  who  is  thus  made  the  rival  of  his 
brother.  After  this,  there  was  hatred,  deep  and  deadly 
hatred,  between  the  two  nations.  Before  this  event, 
there  could  be  no  lasting  cause  of  religious  dissensions, 
for  the  religion  of  Samaria,  perhaps,  was  not  fixed  ;  but 
after  it,  religious  quarrels  occur,   and  a  continual  hatred 

"  [It  deserves  to  be  remembered  that  we  have  only  Nehemiah's  version 
of  the  story.  How  much  he  may  have  colored  his  narrative,  so  as  to  cast  the 
blame  on  the  Samaritans,  we  cannot  tell.  But  if  his  account  is  perfectly 
correct,  we  see  tire  cause  of  the  hostility  of  the  Samaritans  toward  the  Jevs.] 

'  [Josephus  seems  to  make  a  ^eat  mistake  in  respect  to  this  affair,  for  he 
makes  Sanballat  live  under  Darius  Codomannus,  who  was  conquered  by 
Alexander  the  Great,  and  then  adds  a  long  tissue  of  fictions  (they  cannot  be 
facts)  which  he  had  either  forged  or  borrowed.  Probably  he  confounded  tlie 
two  Dariuses,  and  then  invented  the  rest,  to  help  out  the  story.  See  Exchhorn, 
§  3a3.     HahrCs  Heb.  Commonwealth,  p.  IS^.] 


^  86.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TF.XT.  333 

seems  to  have  made  them  deadly  foes.  Josephns  (xii. 
i.)  says,  expressly,  there  were  disorders  because  the 
inhabitants  of  Judah  sent  their  offerings  to  Jerusalem, 
while  the  Samaritans  made  their  sacrifices  at  Mount 
Gerizim.  Again,  (xiii.  ch.  iii.  ^  4,)  he  says  the  Jews 
and  Samaritans  brought  the  dispute  about  their  re- 
spective temples  before  Ptolemy.  "  There  be  two 
manner  of  nations  which  my  heart  abhorreth,  and  the 
third  is  no  nation  —  they  that  sit  on  the  mountain  of 
Samaria,  and  they  that  dwell  among  the  Philistines, 
and  that  foolish  people  that  dwell  in  Sichem,"  says  the 
Son  of  Sirach;"  and  it  was  the  common  Jewish  senti- 
ment in  after  times. 

Now,  it  is  plain  that  the  Samaritans  would  receive  no 
law-book  from  the  Jews  after  their  temple  was  completed 
and  its  religious  rites  established.  It  is  plain,  also,  that 
the  present  Pentateuch  could  not  have  been  acknowl- 
edged as  a  law-book,  in  either  empire,  in  the  time  of 
Jeroboam,  or  Ahab, — certainly  not  before  the  reign  of 
Josiah.  If  it  was  first  compiled  at  that  time,  would  not 
Josiah  take  pains  to  spread  a  knowledge  of  the  law-book 
in  Israel,  when  he  was  careful  to  make  attempts  to 
secure  obedience  to  it?  (2  Kings  xxiii.  1 — 3.)  The  Le- 
vites  were  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah ;  therefore  the  com- 
pilation was  made  there :  now,  when  the  prophets  were 
so  earnest,  and  often  so  successful,  in  preaching  Theism 
and  Holiness,  would  not  they  attempt  to  circulate  the  new 
work?  Was  there  any  insuperable  obstacle  to  its  intro- 
duction ?  If  it  imbodied  the  common  law  of  the  two 
nations,  with  other  provisions  which  the  prophets  had 

"  [See  the  sensible  and  candid  remarks  of  Doctor  Palfrey,  Academic 
Lectures,  vol.  i.  p.  47,  sqq.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  he  does  not 
enter  into  the  argument. 

See  Appendix,  I.] 


334  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  86. 

long  been  attempting  to  procure, — would  they  not 
welcome  the  book,  as  the  courtiers  of  Josiah  did  ? 
But,  still  further,  if  these  attempts  were  not  made,  or 
were  not  successful,  some  knowledge  of  the  Law,  and 
the  book  containing  it,  must  have  been  communicated 
to  the  Samaritans  ;  and  this  would  prepare  the  way  for  a 
more  perfect  reception  of  it,  after  it  had  received  some 
other  alterations  or  additions,  if  such  were  made.  Now, 
what  more  probable  than  that  Manasseh,  the  brother  of 
the  high  priest,  coming  under  those  circumstances,  and 
with  such  expectations,  should  bring  the  Pentateuch 
with  him,  and  publish  it  as  the  law  of  the  land  ?  If  the 
writing  character  in  Samaria  were  different  from  that  in 
Judah,  the  book  could  easily  change  its  form.]  Therefore 
they  who  make  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
contemporary  with  the  erection  of  the  Samaritan  temple, 
and  the  establishment  of  an  independent  Samaritan  sect," 
have  on  their  side  all  the  analogy  of  history,  and  the 
fact  of  the  revolt  of  Manasseh  and  other  Jewish  priests.* 

"  A.  van  Dale,  Ep.  ad  Steph.  Morin.  in  his  Dissertatt.  p.  681,  sqq.  R.  Simon, 
Hist.  crit.  du  V,  T,  i.  10,  p.  66.  Pridmux,  Connection,  vol.  i.  p.  4 14.  Fulda, 
in  Paulus,  Memor.  vol.  vii.  p.  21.  Hasse,  Aussichten  zu  kiinft.  Aufklar.  liber 
das  A.  T.  (Jena,  1785,)  pp.  9—14.  Paidus,  Coinm.  liber  das  N.  T.  vol.  iv.  p.  227. 
De  Welte,  Beitr.  i.  214.  Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  9.  Hup/eld,  1.  c.  Hengstenberg, 
1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  39,  sqq.,  denies,  but  erroneously,  all  affinity  between  the  Samari- 
tans and  the  Israelites  of  the  ten  tribes. 

'  Compare  the  remarks  of  Eichhorn,  §383,  (4th  ed.,)made  against  this  fact, 
from  a  comparison  with  Neh.  xiii.  28,  and  Bktk  thereupon,  in  Rosenmidle/s 
Rep.  vol.  i.  p.  64.  [Eichhorn's  design  is  to  show  the  incredibility  of  the  state- 
ment of  Josephus,  and  cast  suspicion  on  any  one  who  should  make  use  of  his 
narrative  to  establish  tJie  recent  origin  of  the  Samaritan  text.]  See  other 
opinions,  which  favor  a  later  origin,  above,  p.  323,  sqq.,  and  Hartmann,  Hist 
Krit.  Forschungen,  ub.  d.  B.  B.  Mos. ;  1831,  8vo.  Fried.  Im.  Sckwarz,  Exercit. 
hist  crit  in  utrumque  Sam.  Pent. ;  Viteb.  1756,  4to.  Tijcliscn,  De  Pent  Eb, 
Sam.,  etc. ;  Biitzov,  1765,  4to.  Tentamen  de  variis  Codd.  Hebr.  V.  T.  p.  1 19. 
His  opinion  (that  this  text  is  nnt  older  than  the  10th  century)  is  confuted 
by  history.  See  notes,  p.  323,  sqq.  Hasscncamp,  Ursprung  d.  Alt  Bib.  Ubers, 
p.  165.     Bauer,  Crit.  p.  329.     Josephus,  Ant  xi.  7,  §  2,  c.  8,  §2,  4,  6. 


^  87.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  335 

Gesenius  supposes,  with  Stephen  Monnus,  thai  some 
variants  of  the  Samaritan  codex  may  be  explained  from 
the  square  letters,  and  that  the  Samaritans  transcribed 
the  Pentateuch  into  their  own  writing  characters  out  of 
the  Jewish  manuscripts  in  square  letter."  But  this 
opinion  is  scarcely  consistent  with  the  probable  origin 
of  the  square  letter,  and  the  degree  of  affinity  between 
the  Samaritan  and  the  Jewish  coin-letter.* 


%87. 

CRITICAL  VALUE   OF  THIS   RECENSION. 

Hitherto  it  has  been  rather  preconceived  opinions 
than  genuine  critical  arguments  which  led  the  critics  to 
overvalue  this  recension,  or  to  reject  it.''  Only  a  i'ew 
came  to  the  task  with  a  knowledge  of  the  subject  and 
impartial  judgment."^ 

An  accurate,  well-grounded  estimate  of  the  value  of 
the    Samaritan    text    has    been    first   made    in    modern 

"  St.  Morinus,  De  Ling,  prim.,  (Traj.  1694,)  ii.  7,  p.  209,  sqq.  Geseniiis, 
I  c.  p.  16. 

''  Hupfeld,  1.  c. 

'  Jo.  Morinus,  Ex.  iv.  L.  Cappellus,  1.  c.  p.  480,  sqq.  Whiston,  1.  c.  p. 
164.  Hotibigant,  Prolegg.  in  Script,  sac. ;  Par.  1746, 4to.  Notce  crit,  reprinted 
Frcf.  on  M.  1777,  2  torn.  4to.  Kcnnicott,  1.  c.  Alexius  a  S.  Aquilino,  Penta- 
teuchi  Hebr.  Sam.  Prsestantia ;  Heidelb.  1783,  8vo.  Lohstein,  Cod.  Sam. 
Paris.  S.  GenovevfB.  Frcf.  on  M.  1781,  8vo.  Alex.  Geddes,  Bible,  and  in 
Valer's  Comm.  lib.  d.  Pent.  De  Rossi,  Prolegg.  ad  varr.  Lectt.  §  26.  llgen, 
Urkunden  des  Jerus.  Tempelarch.     Bertholdt,  p.  474,  sqq. 

''  Simeon  de  Muis,  Assertio  Veritatis  Hebr.  adv.  Exercitt  eccl.  inutrumque 
Sam.  Pent.  J.  Morini;  Par.  1631,  Bvo.  Hottingcr,  Exercitt.  Anti-Morinianse 
de  Pentat.  Samarit.  ejusque  udentica  aid-Fvila,  etc. ;  Tigur.  1644,  4to.  Stejiili. 
Morin.  Exercitt  de  Lingua  primsev.  p.  200.  Buxtorf,  Anticrit.  ii.  7.  Fuller, 
Miscel.  sac.  iv.  4.  Leusden,  Philol.  Ebr.  mixt.  diss.  8.  A.  Pfeiffer,  Crit  sac. 
c.  9.  Carpzov,  Crit  sac.  p.  610.  Seb.  Rau,  Exercitt.  phil.  in  Hubigantii 
Prolegg. ;  Lug.  Bat  1755,  4to. 


336  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^'  ^^• 

times,  and  it  has  been  shown  that,  for  the  most  part, 
its  peculiar  readings  have  arisen  from  grammatical  cor- 
rections ;  glosses  admitted  into  the  text ;  illustrative  and 
explanatory  conjectures  of  a  grammatical  or  historical 
character ;  from  additions  and  alterations  to  suit  parallel 
passages ;  from  Samaritanisms  in  language,  and  altera- 
tions to  suit  the  peculiar  theology  and  hermeneutics  of 
the  Samaritans,  (Deut.  xxvii.  4 ;)  and  that  the  genuine 
critical  readings  are  but  few." 

[Eichhorn  says  more  than  half  of  the  various  readings 
arise  from  uncritical  and  arbitrary  alterations,  made  to 
suit  preconceived  opinions.  He  finds  eight  emenda- 
tions of  this  character  in  Genesis  i.  and  ii.  But  this 
former  statement  is  quite  too  broad,  for  elsewhere  he 
says,  neither  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  other.  (^  386.) 
Hasse  has  well  said,  "  I  have  found  no  variations  which 
I  prefer  to  the  masoretic  text ;  on  the  contrary,  the 
greatest  part  of  them  are  of  recent  times  ;  they  are  the 
exegetical  glosses  and  interpretations  of  half-informed 
men.  Go  yourself,  with  impartiality  and  the  spirit  of 
candid  inquiry,  to  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch;  compare 
it,  as  I  have  done,  with  the  Hebrew-Jewish  text ;  make 
an  investigation  of  the  various  readings ;  remove  the 
inconsiderable  and  intentional  alterations ;  and  no  egg 
can  be  so  like  another  as  these  two  brethren."* 

A  striking  peculiarity  of  the  Samaritan  version  is  this : 
it  assumes  that  none  of  the  antediluvian  patriarchs  was 


"  R.  Simon,  1.  c,  c.  11, 12.  Walton,  Prolegg.  xi.  17,  18.  Cleric.  Comm. 
in  Pentat.  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xxi.  p.  177,  sqq.,  vol.  xxii.  p.  185.  Eich- 
fiorn,  Einl.  §  389,  und  Prsef.  ad  Kocher,  Nov.  Bib.  Heb.  Baiuii;  Crit  sac. 
p.  331.     Jahn,  Einl.  vol.  i.  p.  415,  sqq. 

De  Pentateuchi  Samaritani  Ongine,  Indole  et  Auctontate  Comment,  philol. 
crit  scrips.  Guil.  Geseniiis ;  Hal.  1815,  4to. 

''  [Hasse,  Auseichten,  p.  14,  cited  in  Geseniua,  1.  c.  p.  24. 


§  87.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  337 

more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  old  when  his  first 
son  was  born ;  (the  Seventy  followed  an  opposite  rule, 
namely,  that  none  of  them  had  a  son  before  he  was  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  old  ;)  and,  therefore,  if  the  He- 
brew text  makes  the  birth  of  the  first  son  take  place 
when  the  father  is  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty,  the 
Samaritan  deducts  one  hundred  years  from  his  age. 
It  never  makes  a  son  attain  a  greater  age  than  his  father, 
(except  the  sons  of  Enoch,)  and  diminishes  the  ages  of 
Jared,  Methuselah,  and  Lamech. 

After  the  deluge,  the  Samaritan  text  allows  no  one 
of  the  patriarchs  the  honors  of  paternity  before  the  age 
of  fifty. 

The  Samaritan  agrees  with  the  Alexandrian  text  in 
Ex.  xii.  40,  and  makes  the  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  include  the  residence  in  Canaan,  as  well  as  Egypt. 
But  this  is  doubtless  a  gloss  in  both  the  Alexandrian  and 
the  Samaritan  text,  —  certainly  it  is  more  difficult  than 
the  Hebrew  reading.  Again,  in  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  "And 
they  saw  the  God  of  Israel,"  it  reads,  "And  they  adhered 
io,"  fcc."  In  Gen.  ii.  2,  it  reads  sixth  day,  for  seventh 
day.  There  is  a  remarkable  corruption  in  Gen.  xlix.  7 : 
"  Cursed  is  their  anger,"  that  is,  of  Levi  and  Simeon. 
The  Samaritan  reads,  "  Most  beautiful  is  their  anger."* 

The  famous  corruption  of  Deut.  xxvii.  4,  of  Ehal  into 
Gerizim,  is  too  well  known  to  need  mention. 

"  I  cannot,"  says  Eichhorn,  "  place  the  fidelity  of 
the  Masorites  in  a  fairer  light  than  by  comparing  the 
Masoretic  with  the  Samaritan  edition ;  for  this  last  is 
full  of  variations,  and  jejune  emblems  of  one  or  many 

*  [Changing  the  Heb.  Itn^T  into  ITn^il . 

*  In  the  original,  the  change  of  letters  is  slight  (Heb,  "^^inH,  Sam.  *i'ii«.)] 

VOL.  I.  43 


338  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  88. 

criticasters,  so  that  scarcely  the  twentieth  part  of  the 
readings,  in  which  it  differs  from  the  Jewish  books,  has 
any  appearance  of  truth."" 

"  It  is  sufficient,"  says  Gesenius,  "  to  utter  a  word  of 
admonition.  In  many  places  where  the  Jewish  text  is 
manifestly  in  an  error,  our  Samaritan  codex  is  so  far 
from  exhibiting  the  ancient  and  genuine  reading,  —  un- 
less it  can  be  reached  by  conjecture,  —  that  it  rather 
affords  that  false  and  deceitful  reading  expressed  after 
+he  manner  of  the  later  Jews."]  * 


THE   FATE   OF  THE   JEWISH    TEXT  TILL    THE   COMPOSITION 
OF  THE   TALMUD. 

While  the  want  of  criticism  was  so  apparent,  both 
among  the  Samaritans  and  Alexandrians,  the  Jews  at 
Palestine  and  Babylon  seem  to  have  been  more  careful.'' 
The  general  reception  of  the  Alexandrian  version  led  to 
the  neglect  of  the  original  text.  But  this  could  scarcely 
extend  to  the  Hebrews  themselves.  [There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  Jewish  scholars  had  a  greater  esteem  for  the 
original  than  for  this  version.  But  the  Alexandrian 
version  was,  nevertheless,  used  in  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogues, as  both  Jewish  and  Christian  writers  inform 
us;**   it   is    cited    in    the    New    Testament  quite  com- 

°  [PrEef.  to  Kocher's  Nov.  Bib.  Heb.  torn.  ii. 

''  L.  c.  p.  64.] 

'  Josephus,  Cont.  Ap.  i.  8,  cited  above,  in  §  15,  p.  37,  sq. 

<*  Bab.  Gemar.  Tract.  Megilla,  c,  1,  §  8.  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talm.  p.  104.  [See 
Hody,  p.  224,  sqq.  Tertullian,  Apol.  c.  18.  Jtisiin.  M.  Dial,  cum  Try- 
phone,  p.  298,  sqq.     Eichhorn,  §  166.] 


§  88.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  339 

monly,  though,  perhaps,  it  was  used  in  this  case  l^e- 
cause  the  New  Testament  is  written  in  Greek."  Jo- 
sephus  commonly  uses  the  Alexandrian  version,  though 
he  seems  to  have  had  a  copy  of  the  original  before 
him.  He  believes  the  story  of  Aristeas  respecting  the 
authors  of  this  version  ;  explains  passages  in  the  peculiar 
sense  of  the  Seventy,  even  when  they  are  manifestly 
false,  as  a  glance  at  the  original  will  show.  He  trans- 
lates proper  names  as  the  Seventy  have  done,  follows 
their  division  of  passages  which  differs  from  the  Hebrew, 
and  seeks  his  emphasis  in  the  version.*  Philo,  likewise, 
follows  the  Seventy  in  preference  to  the  Hebrew  ;  and 
"  no  passage,"  says  Eichhorn,  "  has  yet  been  discovered 
in  his  writings  where  he  quotes  the  original  clearly  and 
expressly."  He  even  derives  his  curious  etymologies 
from  the  Greek."  These  facts  make  it  probable  that 
the  original  text  was  not  held  so  exclusively  sacred  at 
this  period  as  afterwards,  when  hostility  to  the  Chris- 
tians had  awakened  the  spirit  of  criticism,  and  led  to  the 
study  of  the  original  text.] 

We  do  not  know  what  the  learned  Jews  of  Babylon 
and  Palestine  did  to  promote  a  more  accurate  transmis- 
sion of  the  text ;  but  the  form  which  was  afterwards 
fixed  must  have  been  mainly  determined  about  the  time 
of  the  birth  of  Christ ;  for  Aquila,  and  the  other  Greek 
translators,  after  that  time,  differ  less  than  the  Seventy 

"  [Koppe  has  shown  that  St  Paul  used  this  version,  Nov,  Test.  vol.  iv. 
Exciirs.  i.,  and  Epist.  ad  Rom.  On  the  text  used  by  the  evangelists,  see 
Eichhoj-n,  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  ii.  p.  947,  sqq.] 

''  [See  Josephus,  Ant  xii.  2.  iii.  7,  §  5.  vi.  10,  §2,  and  4.  §  1.  i.  1,  §  1. 
viii.  2,  §  5.  See  Eichhorn,  §  339,  a,  vol.  ii.  p.  445,  sq.  Michaelis  thinks  Jo- 
sephus  used  the  original.  Or.  Bib.  vol.  v.  Anhang.  But  see  Scharfenberg, 
Prolus.  de  Josephi  et  Vers.  Alex.  Consensu,  (Lips.  1780,  4to.,)  who  proves 
the  contrary.     Eichhorn,  §  108,  sqq.] 

'  [Eichhorn,  §  109,  169,  164,  167,  179.] 


340  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  88. 

from  the  masoretic  text;"  and  Onkelos  and  Jonathan 
approach  very  near  to  it.'' 

[The  state  of  the  text,  at  this  time,  may  be  learned,  in 
part,  from  the  Seventy,  the  fragments  of  the  other  Greek 
versions,  from  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  and  the  citations 
in  the  Mishna,  and  in  part,  also,  from  those  in  the  New 
Testament  and  Josephus.] 

About  the  time  of  Christ,  also,  in  Jerusalem,  and, 
after  the  destruction  of  the  state,  at  Jabne,  Ziphoria, 
Lydda,  Caesarea,  Tiberias,  and  subsequently  in  Sora, 
Pumpeditha,  and  Nahardea  in  Babylonia,  there  flourished 
learned  schools  of  the  Jews,  in  which  grammar  and 
criticism  may  have  been  studied,  as  well  as  the  Law.' 

In  the  third  century,  Origen,  in  the  composition  of  his 
Hexapla,  made  use  of  a  manuscript  which  was  related  to 
the  masoretic  recension.''  In  the  fourth  century,  Jerome 
employed  Palestine  instructors  and  manuscripts.  It  is 
on  this  account  that  his  version,  so  far  as  it  respects 
explanations  and  readings,  agrees  so  well  with  the 
present  received  text  of  the  Jews."  [Jerome  was  care- 
ful to  procure  a  good  Hebrew  text  before  he  began  to 
amend  the  old  Latin  version.  He  doubted  the  accuracy 
of  the  common  text  in  the  books  of  Kings,  and  therefore 
procured  a  distinguished  Hebrew  teacher  from  Tiberias, 


Cappellus,  vol.  ii.  p.  843.  Eichhorn,  Praef.  ad  Kocheri,  Nov.  Bib.  Heb. 
Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  382,  sqq. 

'  Cappellus,  vol.  ii.  p.  771,  and  VogeVs  remark.  JViner,  De  Onkeloso, 
p.  23,  sqq.     Gesenius,  Jes.  vol.  i.  p.  80. 

"  On  HUM  and  Shammai,  see  JVolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  824 ;  on  the  school 
at  Tiberias,  &c.,  vol.  ii.  p.  914 ;  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  ch.  5—7,  p.  20,  sqq. ; 
siting,  Hist.  Acad.  Jud.  0pp.  v.  p.  240,  sq. ;  and  other  authorities  quoted  in 
Wolf,  vol.  ii.  p.  924. 

"  Bruns,  Cura>  Hexap.  in  iv.  Lib.  Reg.  in  Eichhorn,  Repert  vol.  ix.  and  x. 
Eichhorn,  §  113. 

'  Cappellus,  1.  c.  p.  808.    Eichhorn.,  §  127. 


§  88.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  341 

then  the  seat  of  the  best  school  of  Jewish  learning,  and, 
with  his  assistance,  made  a  careful  revision  of  the  text 
in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles."  The  Hebrew 
consonants  had  then  assumed  their  present  form,  for  he 
mentions  the  similarity  between  certain  letters.  He 
knew  nothing  of  the  diacritical  marks,  of  the  point  over 
'f,  or  of  dagesh,  or  of  the  division  into  verses.  But  he 
found  the  extraordinary  points ;  for  example,  in  Gen. 
xviii.  35,  and,  in  some  places,  perhaps,  the  Keri  in  the 
margin.  Eichhorn  thinks  —  though  he  speaks  under 
correction  —  that  his  Hebrew  codex  of  Isaiah  differed 
from  the  present  masoretic  text  in  only  two  places,  (xix. 
19,  and  xxi.  1 1 ;)  and  even  here  it  is  doubtful  that  there  is 
any  difference.*  In  short,  his  manuscript  agreed  as  well 
"wath  the  present  masoretic  text  as  the  most  accurate  of 
the  modern  Spanish  manuscripts,  which  differ  less  from 
it  than  the  Italian  and  German.]  "^ 

Hitherto  the  text  was  without  points,  and  even  with- 
out the  diacritical  marks.  Thus  Jerome  says,  "  The 
same  word  written  with  the  same  letters  has  different 
sounds  and  meanings  among  them.  Thus,  for  example, 
shepherds  and  lovers  are  written  with  the  same  letters, 
namely,  res,  ain,  jod,  mem,  (n'^y^.)  But  shepherds  is 
pronounced  roim,  and  lovers  reim.''^  Again :  "  It  mat- 
ters not  whether  it  is  called  Salem  or  Salim,  for  the 
Jews  very  seldom  use  vowels  in  the  middle  of  a  word, 
and  so  the  same  words  read  with  different  sounds  and 
accents,  which  depend  on  the  will  of  the  reader  and  the 

"  [See  §  48,  p.  190,  and  §  f)9,  p.  258,  sqq.] 

*  [In  the  first,  perhaps,  he  read  D^n ;  in  the  latter,  he  reads  ri?2l^ ,  not  as 
if  it  were  in  the  text,  but  as  a  mere  conjecture  of  some  Jews.  See  Geseni- 
us,  inloc] 

'  [Eichhorn,  §  121—128.] 


S42  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  89. 

district  of  the  country."  "  For  that  word  which  we 
have  rendered  death,  we  have,  in  the  Hebrew,  three 
letters,  daleth,  beth,  res,  without  any  vowel.  If  it  is 
read  dahar,  it  means  a  ivord,  but  if  read  deber,  a  pesti- 
lence.''^ The  word  q-u,  according  to  its  position,  means 
placed,  [^v,]  or  there,  [y^ .]  In  other  places,  he  shows 
with  what  confidence  he  regarded  his  own  interpretation. 
Thus,  on  Gen.  xlvii.  33,  he  says,  "  Some  unreasonably 
])retend,  from  this  passage,  that  Jacob  worshipped  the 
top  of  Joseph's  staff.  But  much  in  Hebrew  may  be 
read  in  different  ways.  Israel  worshipped  at  the  head 
of  his  6e<i."" 

§89. 

TRACES  OF  A  CRITICAL  CARE  FOR  THE  TEXT,  IN  THE 
TALMUD, 

The  Talmud  gives  precepts  for  biblical  caligraphy. 
Thus  it  says,  "  Books  may  be  received  from  foreigners, 
or  wherever  they  can  be  found,  provided  they  are  writ- 

Hieronymus,  Ep.  125,  ad  Damas. :  Idem  senno  et  iisdem  litteris  scriptua 
diversas  apud  eos  et  voces  et  intelligentias  habet,  e.  g.  pastores  et  amatores 
iisdem  litteris  scribuntur,  res,  ain,  jod,  mem,  (2'i>'"i :)  sed  pastores  roim  le- 
guntur,  amatores  reim.  Ep.  126,  ad  Evagr. :  Non  refert,  utrum  Salem,  an 
Saliin  nominetur,  cum  vocalibus  in  medio  litteris  perraro  utantur  Hebrsei,  et 
pro  voluntate  ledorum  atque  varietate  regionum  eadem  verba  diversis  sonis  et 
accentibus  proferantur.  Com.  a^d  Hab.  iii.  5:  Pro  eo,  quod  nos  transtuli- 
mus  mortem,  in  Hebraeo  tres  litteree  sunt  positae,  daleth,  beth,  resch,  absque 
ulla  vocali,  quse  si  legantur  dabar,  verbum  significant ;  si  deber,  pestem.  Hab. 
iii.  4  :  Verbum  QrJ  pro  qualitate  loci,  et  posuit  (tiC)  intelligitur,  et  ibi  (Sffi..) 
On  Gen.  xlvii.  33:  Hoc  loco  quidam  frustra  simulant,  adorasse  Jacob  summi- 
tatem  scepiri  (n;:^p)  Josephi,  cum  in  Hebrceo  mulhm  aliter  legatur: 

et  adoravit  Israel  ad  caput  ledidi.  See  Hup/eld,  in  Stud,  und  Krit.  for  1830, 
p.  571,  sqq. 

[Doctor  /.  M.  Jost,  in  the  Neue  Jena  Allg.  Lit  Zeit.  for  March,  1842,  p.  210, 
says  that  some  fragments  of  an  old  Hebrew  Bible  have  been  found  in  the 
Crimea,  in  which  the  vocalization  and  accentuation  are  different  throughout 


^  89.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  343 

ten  according  to  rule.""  "You  must  write  so  that  the 
writing  shall  be  perfect.  Alepli  must  not  be  written  for 
ain,  beih  for  caph,  ghnel  for  daleth,  he  for  lieth,  vau  for 
yod,  zain  for  nun,  teth  for  peh,  nor  the  incurvate  for  the 
direct  letters ;  nor  mem  for  samech,  the  shut  letters  for 
the  open,  (a  final  lor  •^  ;)  nor  an  open  section  be  made  a 
closed  section;  nor  the  reverse  of  these.'"' 

The  Talmud  speaks  also  of  the  comparison  of  manu- 
scripts,'' and  of  an  enumeration  of  the  verses,  words,  and 
letters,  of  the  Bible,  which  reveals  a  painful  anxiety  to 
preserve  the  text.  Thus  it  says,  "  The  ancients  were 
called  counters  (tsiitio)  because  they  counted  all  the 
letters  of  the  Law,  and  said  the  letter  vau,  in  the  word 
•^im,  Levit.  xi.  42,  is  the  middle  letter  of  the  book  of  the 
Law.  The  w^ord  en  •c'l-,  Levit.  x.  16,  is  the  middle 
word  of  the  Law,  and  Levit.  xiii.  33,  the  middle  verse. 
The  letter  ain,  in  ^*j^,  Ps.  Ixxx.  14,  is  the  middle  letter 
of  the  Psalms,  and  Ps.  Ixxviii.  38  is  the  middle  verse  of 
the  Psalms."  "^ 

There   occur  in  the   Talmud,  as  afterwards   in    the 


from  that  of  our  present  Bibles.  He  caused  a  fac  simile  of  a  part  of  Isa. 
xlix.  to  be  inserted  in  a  Hebrew  periodical  called  Zion,  Jahrgang,  601,  No. 
11.  He  thinks  the  age  of  this  fragment  greater  than  that  of  the  common 
Bibles,  and  that  it  proves  the  present  system  of  vocalization  and  accentuation 
has  not  always  prevailed.] 

"  Tr.  Gittim,  fol.  45,  col.  2.     See  Tychsen,  1.  c.  p.  18.     Eichhom,  §  114. 

"  Tr.  Schab.  fol.  103,  col.  2. 

'  Jerusalem  Talmud,  Tr.  Taanith,  fol.  68,  col.  1.  (Comp.  Tr.  Sopherim, 
vi.  4.)  Tres  libros  invenerunt  in  atrio,  librum  ''31S?3 ,  librum  '^tsitsS'T  et  1. 
ST! :  in  uno  invenerunt  scriptum  (Deut  xxxiii.  27)  IIS^S ,  in  duobus  nsiy^a , 
et  apprnbantes  duos,  rejecerunt  unum.  In  uno  invenerunt  (Exod.  xxiv.  5,) 
Bcriptum  '^i:V^y'\ ,  in  duobus  '^IJ'S,  et  approbantes  duos,  rejecerunt  unum. 
In  uno  invenerunt  scriptum  (Gen.  xxxii.  23)  S'^n  3>cn,  (ed.  Fr.  'iriH  "iZS 
J«^n ,;  in  duobus  JS'^n  nTJ»  ini« ,  (ed.  Fr.  Ji^n  ir5  nns ,)  et  approbantes 
duos,  rejecerunt  unum.  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  34.  Morinus,  Ex.  bib 
p.  408.     Eichhorn,  §  115. 

■*  Kiddushin,  fol.  30,  col.  1.    Comp.  Burtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  44. 


344  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^89. 

Masora,  certain  classes  of  corrections,  which  had  been 
admitted  into  the  text  of  the  Bible  before  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Talmud."     They  are  as  follows  :  — 

I.  The  omission  of  the  scribes.''  This  relates  to  the 
omission  of  the  prefix  vau,  in  Gen.  xviii.  5,  xxiv.  55, 
Num.  xii.  14,  Ps.  Ixviii.  26,  xxxvi.  7. 

II.  The  extraordinary  points,  which  occur  in  fifteen 
words;  for  example,  '«5i5,  Ps.  xxvii.  13;  ^"4^,  (Samaritan 
ta54,)  Num.  xxi.  30  ;  n?3=ipa,  Gen.  xix.  Q3.' 

III.  What  is  read,  but  not  ivritten,  (Keri  velo  Kethib.) 

"•  Morinus,  1.  c,  p.  570,  finds  in  these  corrections /rogmenfe  or  vestiges  of 
recensions,  [supposing  each  class  thereof  to  be  the  result  of  an  entire  re- 
vision of  the  text]  Eichhorn,  §  116,  finds  three  ixvisions,  and  Bertholdt, 
p.  270,  a  great  critical  ivorJc,  undertaken  for  various  purposes.  He  ascribes 
it  to  the  Talmudists.  On  the  other  side,  see  Jahn,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  384.  All 
of  these  following  classes  are  said  to  be  the  traditions  of  Moses  from  Mount 
Sinai.     Nedarim,  fol.  37,  col.  2. 

*  a-i'ltiD  ^^t33>.  See  Buxtorf  Lex.  Talmud,  sub  voce,  pp.  15,  97.  Mo- 
ri7ius,  1.  c.  p.  570.     Cappellus,  ed.  Vogel,  vol.  i.  p.  443,  sqq.     Eichhorn,  §  117. 

To  tliese  might  be  added  the  correction  of  the  scribes,  tl'^"i&iD  '^1p"'Pli 
which  relates  to  sixteen  or  eighteen  passages  that  have  been  freed  from 
errors  —  Gen.  xviii.  22,  1  Sam.  iii.  13,  and  others.  This  —  the  correction  of 
the  scribes  —  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  but  in  works  of  later  date. 
See  the  Masora  on  Num.  i.  1,  Ps.  cvi.  20.  Comp.  Buxtorf,  Morinus,  and 
Vogel,  1.  c.  Eichhorn,  §  116.  Oehlschltiger,  Prses.  Bornitz  de  Thikkun 
Sopherim ;  Viteb.  1644. 

"  [These  are  probably  affixed  to  a  word  or  letter  to  show  that  it  did  not 
belong  to  tlie  genuine  text,  which  makes  good  sense  without  it.  The  other 
instances  of  extraordinary  points  are.  Gen.  xvi.  5,  xviii.  9,  xxxiii.  4,  xxxvi. 
12;  Num.  iii.  39,  ix.  10,  xxix.  15 ;  Deut.  xxix.  28 ;  2  Sam.  xix.  20  ;  Isa.  xliv. 
9;  Ezek.  xli.  20,  xlvi.  22,  enumerated  by  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  173,  and 
Eichhorn,  §  118.]  See  Morinus,  p.  106.  Hiipeden,  Neue  wahrscheinliche 
Muthmass.  von  der  wahren  Urs.  und  Bedeut.  der  ausserordentliche  Puncte, 
&c. ;  Hann.  1751,  4to.  Gesenius  has  found  points  in  Samaritan  MSS.  over 
single  letters  and  words,  used  to  denote  their  spuriousness.  By  this  means, 
the  scribes  avoided  striking  out  and  erasing  words.  On  misunderstanding 
these  points,  see  Tr.  Nasir.  fol.  23,  col.  1.  Q,uare  est  puncutum  supra 
litteram  T  in  n>3^p:i1  de  primogenita?  Ad  indicandum,  quod,  cum  de- 
cumberet,  non  cognoverit,  et,  dum  surgeret,  noverit  Jerome,  Quasst  in 
Gen.  xviii.  35 :  Appungunt  desuper,  quasi  incredibile  et  quod  rerum  natura 
non  capiat,  coire  querapiam  nescientem. 


§  89.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  345 

This  relates  to  words  that  are  not  in  the  text,  but  are  yet 
read  as  if  there.  Such  words  occur  in  seven  passages  ; 
for  example,  in  2  Sam.  viii.  3,  xvi.  23." 

IV.  Written,  hut  not  read,  (Kethib  velo  Keri.)  This 
relates  to  words  that  stand  in  the  text,  but  are  not  read 
with  it.  They  occur  in  five  passages ;  for  example,  in 
2  Kings  V.  18,  the  word  !s:3.* 

V.  Various  readings.  The  Talmud  also  sometimes 
mentions  various  readings,  which  the  Masorites  call 
written  and  read,  (Keri  oo  Kethib.)  They  occur  in  Job 
xiii.  15,  Hag.  i.  8."  [In  these  cases,  the  true  reading 
stands  in  the  margin  without  vowels,  for  the  vowels  of 
the  text  belong  to  the  marginal  reading.  Sometimes 
they  are  properly  various  readings  ;  for  example,  si  for 
13,  and  the  contrary.  Sometimes  they  furnish  the 
readings  of  old  manuscripts,  but  do  not  inform  us  in 
what,  or  in  how  many,  manuscripts  the  variants  occur. 
Sometimes  they  contain  explanations  of  difficult  words, 
as  in  1  Sam.  v.  6,  9,  12,  vi.  4,  5,  11,  17,  Deut.  xxviii. 
17;  and  again  they  supply  euphemisms,  as  in  2  Kings 
xviii.  27,  Isa.  xxvi.  12.] -^ 


"  Nedarim,  fol.  37,  col.  2.  El.  Levita,  Masor.  Hamm.  vol.  ii.  p.  ]75,  sqq., 
mentions  eight,  and  in  the  preface,  ten  passages,  Comp.  Morinus,  p.  407, 
497.  CappeLlus,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  180,  sqq.  But  the  marginal  annotations,  the 
vacant  spaces,  and  the  points  in  the  text,  are  later  than  the  Talmud. 

*  Nedarim,  1.  c.  Morinus,  p.  498.  Cappellus,  p.  185,  sqq.  Eichhorn  very 
properly  considers  both  of  these  classes  as  glosses. 

"  Tr.  Sota,  v.  5.  Eichhorn,  §  120.  Joma,  fol.  21,  col.  2.  Quid  est,  quod 
Bcriptum  exstat  (Hag.  i.  8)  "IS^SI ,  et  nos  legimus  m^5i5|;']  ?  Euphemistic 
Keris  occur;  Megilla,  fol.  25,  col.  2.  Tradunt  rabbini  nostri:  Omnes 
voces,  quse  scriptae  sunt  in  lege  in  turpitudinem,  leguntur  in  laudem,  e.  g. 
pro  ra^^-^a"^,  (Deut.  xxviii.  30,)  reais^ ;  pro  V^^SJa ,  (ib.  verse  27,)  ^"1""^^^ ; 
pro  B-^iT^  ■^in,  (2  Reg.  vi.  25,)  tJ-^DTini;  pro  urT^Sin,  SH'^S'iffii ,  (ib.  xviii.  27,) 
tirij^'i: ,  cn-i^^ ;  pro  mj*in>:i ,  (ib.  x.  27,)  m«2i?3i . 

"^  [Jahn,  1.  c.  p.  387,  sqq.     WaUon,  Prol.  viii.  20—28.] 

VOL.  I.  44 


346  HISTORY  OF  the  text.  [^  90. 

The  unusual  letters,  the  suspended  and  inverted,  the 
greater  and  the  smaller,  had,  originally,  only  a  critieal 
meaning,  perhaps,  but  afterwards  acquired  a  mystical 
signification." 

§90. 

THE   MASORA. 

After  the  Talmud  was  finished,  and  about  the  sixth 
century,  the  Jews,  who  were  learned  in  the  Scriptures, 
especially  those  at  the  town  of  Tiberias,  began  to  labor 
upon  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  a  critical,  gram- 
matical, and  exegetical  way,  though  not  without  Jewish 
frivolity.  Their  store  of  remarks  was,  at  first,  trans- 
mitted by  word  of  mouth ;  *  but  subsequently  it  was 
written.  Thus  Aben  Ezra,  who  wrote  about  1150 
A.  C,  says,  "  Such  was  the  custom  of  the  wise  men  of 
Tiberias,  for  the  Masorites  were  of  their  number,  and 
we  have  received  from  them  the  whole  system  of  punc- 
tuation."" Elias  Levita  says,  "  The  Masora  was  handed 
down  from  one  learned  man  to  another,  until  the  time  of 
Ezra  and  his  coadjutors  ;  by  them  it  was  committed  to 
the  learned  men  of  Tiberias,  who  caused  it  to  be  written, 


"  See,  e.  g.,  tlie  litera  majuscula  in  1')na ,  Levit.  xi.  42.  ( Gcsenius,  Lehrge- 
baude,  p.  11.  See  above,  p.  343.)  Baba  Bathra,  fol.  109,  col.  2:  An 
(Gersom)  filius  Manassis  fuit  et  non  potius  f.  Mosis  ?  sicut  scriptura  est: 
filii  Mosis  Gersom  et  Elieser,  (1  Ch.  xxiii.  14  ;)  sed  propterea  quod  fecit  opera 
Manassis,  (fil.  Hiskse  regis,)  appendit  eum  Scriptura  (familije)  Manassis. 
Comp.  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  ch.  xvi.  p.  171.  The  Masora  is  called  the  "Hedge 
of  the  Law"  in  Pirke  Aboth,  iii.  13. 

*  The  word  is  written  variously  by  the  Jews  —  n^iio^s  >  2n"iiD?2  ,  and  miSlO- 
It  is  derived  from  'no:>2 ,  to  deliver,  hand  down,  trado.  On  this  and  other 
etymologies  of  the  word,  see  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  ch,  i.  p.  3,  sqq,  Carpzov, 
Crit  sac.  p.  284.     Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  461,  sqq. 

'  In  Zachath,  as  quoted  by  Buxtorf,  1.  c.  ch.  iii.  p.  9. 


^90.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  347 

and  the  name  Masora  to  be  affixed  to  it."  "  Thus  it 
was  until  the  points  were  affixed,  and  this  period  con- 
tinued till  the  Talmud  was  closed,  that  is,  till  the  year 
3989  after  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  the  436th  after 
the  second  dispersion.  From  this  time  forth,  the  holy 
language  ceased  to  be  spoken,  till  the  time  of  the  Maso- 
rites  —  these  are  the  men  of  Tiberias."" 

[It  cannot  be  accurately  determined,  from  the  Jewish 
writings,  when  or  where  the  Masorites  lived.  There 
are  three  hypotheses  respecting  the  matter.  1.  Some 
say  the  men  of  Tiberias  are  the  authors  of  the  Masora. 
2.  Others  ascribe  it  to  Ezra,  and  the  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue.  3.  And  others  make  Moses  the  author, 
who,  it  is  said,  received  the  true  reading  and  the  true 
interpretation  from  God,  and  transmitted  it  to  the 
elders.  "  However,  the  Masera  did  not  proceed  from 
Moses,  Ezra,  or  the  pretended  men  of  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue, but  from  the  later  Jews.  The  first  foundation 
is  older  than  the  Talmud.  The  ages  between  the  third 
and  sixth  centuries  have  furnished  the  richest  contribu- 
tions to  it,  though,  according  to  itself,  it  has  received 
accessions  in  every  age,  and  is  not  yet  completed. 

"  1.  The  Talmud  contains  many  of  the  remarks  which 
form  part  of  the  Masora.  Both  mention  the  omission 
and  the  correction  of  the  scribes;  both  speak  of  the  Keri 
velo  Kethib,  and  the  Kethib  veto  Keri.''  The  Talmud 
points  out  the  middle  consonant,  the  middle  letter,  and 

"  VoiTf'de  zur  Mas.  Hammas.  pp.  3  and  67.  See  Morinus,  1.  c.  p.  411 ; 
Walton,  Prol.  viii.  12 ;  Cappellus  and  Simon.  On  the  contrary,  Buodorf,  1.  c. 
ch.  xi.  p.  102 ;  Le%isden,  Phil.  Heb. ;  ./3.  Pfeiffer,  Diss,  de  Masora ;  Liischer, 
De  Causis  Ling-.  Heb.  p.  91 ;  Wolf,  1.  c.  p.  465 ;  and  Carpzov,  1.  c.  p.  286, 
who  place  the  commencement  of  the  Masora  in  the  time  of  Ezra.  [See  the 
judicious  opinion  of  Palfrey,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  59,  sq.  Home,  pt.  i.  ch.  ii.  sect, 
1.  §  1.] 

''  [See  §  89,  p.  344.] 


348  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  90. 

the  middle  verse,  of  the  Pentateuch,"  as  the  Masora  does 
of  all  the  books.  Some  of  these  annotations  —  subse- 
quently incorporated  in  the  Masora  —  were  made  before 
the  third  century,  and  expressed  in  the  text  of  manu- 
scripts in  various  ways ;  for  example,  by  consonants  of 
unusual  form,  the  suspended  and  inverted,  the  greater 
and  smaller  letters,  and  by  extraordinary  points.  But 
none  of  them  was  written  out  fully  before  the  time  of  the 
Talmud. 

"  2.  After  the  composition  of  the  Talmud,  these  anno- 
tations rapidly  increased  from  age  to  age.  The  tract 
Sopherim,  which  was  written  between  the  time  of 
the  Talmud  and  that  of  the  Masora,  speaks  more  fully 
of  some  kinds  of  them,  but  it  does  not  agree  with  the 
Masora.  Thus,  for  example,  the  Talmud  enumerates 
five  Kethib  velo  Keri;  the  tract  Sopherim,  six;  and  the 
Masora,  on  Ruthiii.  12,  eight;  and  this  difference  is  still 
more  striking  when  it  is  noticed  that  only  two  of  the  six 
mentioned  by  the  tract  are  the  same  with  those  cited 
by  the  Talmud.  During  this  period,  also,  the  critical 
annotations  were  preserved  by  various  signs  or  characters 
written  in  the  manuscripts.  The  greater  and  smaller, 
the  suspended  and  inverted  letters,  are,  at  least,  older 
than  the  written  Masora. 

"  3.  Finally,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century, 
the  scattered  annotations  already  made  were  collected 
into  a  whole,  called  the  Masora,  by  the  Jews  at  Tiberias, 
where,  it  is  well  known,  an  academy  of  Jews  flourished 
after  the  time  of  Christ,  and  great  attention  was  paid  to 
the  critical  revision  of  the  Bible. 

"  4.  But  still  the  Masora  was  not  regarded  as  a 
finished  work.     From  time   to  time,    new   annotations 

"  [See  §  89,  p.  343.] 


^90.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  349 

were  inserted,  and  the  old  furnished  with  new  examples. 
From  this  circumstance,  the  Masora  does  not  agree  with 
itself,  nor  with  the  present  masoretic  editions  of  the 
Bible,  in  the  number  of  passages  cited  as  instances  of 
a  particular  law,  or  of  exceptions  to  it.  It  is  to  be 
wished  that  the  principal  masoretic  recension  of  the 
sixth  century,  or  the  old  masoretic,  could  be  separated 
from  the  new  masoretic  recension,  made  since  that 
time.  But  the  modern  annotations  are  so  intimately 
mingled  with  the  old,  that  it  is  impossible  to  separate 
them."]" 

At  first,  the  Masora  was  written  in  separate  books,* 
but  afterwards  on  the  margin  of  manuscripts  of  the 
Bible."  [The  books  containing  nothing  but  the  Masora 
were  written  without  any  systematic  order.  Their  ma- 
terials are  thrown  together  as  chance  directed.  Such  a 
chaotic  mass  could  not  be  used  conveniently ;  therefore 
the  most  important  passages  were  extracted  from  the 
great  work,  and  written,  with  many  abbreviations,  on 
the  margin  of  manuscripts.  But  they  were  written 
without  regular  method.     Every  passage  was  not  fur- 

"  [Eichkorn,  §  141,  and  Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  389,  sqq.,  who  agrees  with  Eichhorn 
on  this  point.  Jablonski,  Prsef.  ad  Bib.  Heb.  §  32.  StarJc,  Carm.  Davidis, 
vol.  i.  p.  48,  says  the  Masora  has  been  revised  two  or  three  times  —  first  at 
Tiberias,  then  in  Babylonia,  about  1037  A.  C,  and  finally  after  the  time  of 
Rabbi  Jonah.  "  O,"  says  Eichhorn,  "  that  he  had  separated  these  three 
recensions,  since  he  tliought  it  could  be  done  so  easily ! "] 

'  Elias  Levita,  1.  c.  p.  86.  Cod.  Palat.  in  Rom.  Comp.  Annal.  litt.  Helm- 
stad.  An.  1784,  p.  97. 

"  On  the  various  forms  of  it,  see  Carpzov,  1.  c.  p.  290.  Buxtorf,  1.  c.  195. 
[Elias  Levita,  cited  in  Buxtorf,  says,  "  The  great  Masora  is  almost  infinite 
in  extent.  If  all  the  words  of  it  which  I  have  seen  in  my  life  were  written 
and  bound  togetlier  in  one  book,  it  would  exceed  the  size  of  the  whole 
Bible."  The  Jews  sometimes  Avrote  the  biblical  text  in  a  small  space  in  the 
centre  of  a  leaf,  and  surrounded  it  with  the  Masora,  which  thus  became 
literally  "the  Hedge  of  the  Law,"  n^inn  5^D  — so  that  the  text  stood  "  like 
a  lodge  in  a  garden  of  cucumbers."] 


350  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  90. 

nished  with  its  proper  note ;  nor  was  a  reference  made 
to  the  place  where  it  could  be  found.  The  abbreviators 
collected  remarks  of  a  certain  kind  in  any  place,  as 
accident  suggjested,  and  left  it  for  the  reader's  sagacity 
to  find  these  remarks ;  a  later  Masorite  made  such 
additions  as  he  pleased  to  the  annotations  of  his 
predecessors,  with  whom  he  sometimes  agreed,  and 
sometimes  differed.  The  Jews  cared  little  for  these 
inconveniences,  and  made  no  attempts  to  remove  them. 
But  the  abbreviations  that  had  been  used  were  to 
them  the  source  of  greater  perplexity,  for  they  de- 
manded a  peculiar  study,  and,  even  with  all  their  dili- 
gence, they  could  not  make  use  of  all  the  observations 
so  darkly  written ;  accordingly  they  began  to  insert 
the  whole  Masora,  with  the  Hebrew  text,  and  to  vt^rite 
as  many  annotations  as  the  margin  of  the  manuscripts 
would  contain,  without  always  considering  whether  the 
note  was  connected  with  the  verse  which  it  explained. 

The  portion  of  the  Masora  written  on  the  margin  of 
the  manuscripts  is  called  the  textual^  that  at  the  end  of 
the  books,  the  final  Masora.  The  textual  is  divided 
into  the  small  and  the  great.  The  former,  derived 
from  the  latter,  is  usually  written  at  the  sides,  the 
latter  above  and  below  the  text,  but  sometimes  also  at 
the  sides.  The  great  final  Masora  is  placed  at  the 
end  of  each  book." 

After  the  time  when  attempts  were  made  to  insert 
the  whole  Masora  on  the  margin  of  manuscripts,  — 
which  was  often  too  small  for  it,  —  transcribers  allowed 
themselves  to  omit  what  the  margin  of  the  page  would 
not  contain ;  and  the  passages  omitted   were,   for    the 


"  [Eichhorn,  §  154.     Walton,  Prol.  viii.  11.     Buxtorf,  Clav.  Mas.  p.  218. 
See  the  above  note  c,  p.  349.] 


^  90.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  351 

most  part,  added  at  the  end  of  the  book,  but  sometimes 
the  J  were  left  out. 

Sometimes  the  Masora  did  not  fill  the  whole  margin 
of  the  page ;  and  in  order  to  leave  nothing  empty,  and 
not  offend  the  nice  eye  of  the  purchaser  by  the  sight  of 
empty  spaces,  a  portion  of  the  previous  Masora  was 
repeated,  sufficient  to  fill  the  chasm,  or  various  othei 
fragments,  sometimes  relating  to  the  same,  sometimes  to 
different  subjects,  were  patched  together.  Besides,  the 
copyist  often  adorned  his  manuscript  by  writing  the 
Masora  in  figures  of  men  and  animals,  caricatures,  and 
the  like ;  and  sometimes  he  had  too  much  or  too  little 
space  left  for  the  figure  he  had  commenced,  and  so  he 
added  to  the  Masora,  or  diminished  it,  to  suit  his  con- 
venience." Every  rabbi  who  revised  or  read  the  Mas 
ora,  took  the  liberty  to  add  such  new  notes  as  he 
pleased.  At  its  best  state,  the  Masora  was  confusion : 
by  this  treatment  it  became  worse  confounded,  and  the 
remark  of  Elias  is  fully  justified  —  "There  was  not  a 
house  in  which  was  not  one  dead."  As  Kennicott 
suggests,  it  resembled  the  Elm  in  the  poem,  "celebrated 
for  the  residence  of  vain  dreams."]  * 

This  manner  of  writing  the  Masora,  and  the   con- 

"  [Elias  Levita  complains  touchingly  at  this  treatment  of  the  Masora. 
"  But  the  scribes  who  copied  the  biblical  books,  extracted  as  each  one  saw- 
fit, —  writing-  it  in  the  margins,  below  and  above,  —  here  copiously,  there 
briefly,  according  to  the  size  of  the  margin."  See  his  pitiful  threnody  in 
Buxtorf,  1.  c.  p.  197.  Shickard,  cited  in  Carpzov,  p.  291,  speaks  of  a  MS. 
the  margin  of  which  seemed,  at  first  sight,  adorned  with  pictures  of  lions, 
bears,  sheep,  and  oxen ;  but,  on  a  closer  inspection,  it  appeared  that  the  Mas- 
ora was  written  in  these  forms,  in  a  very  minute  character.  What  wonder 
it  was  corrupted  in  such  transmigrations  ? 

Eichhorn,  §  155.     Michaelis,  De  Codd.  Erfurt,  p.  32.] 

*  [Ulmus  opaca,  ingens,  quam  sedem  Somnia  vulgo 
Vana  tenere  ferunt,  foliisque  sub  omnibus  haerent 

JEneid,  vi.  283,  284] 


352  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  90. 

tinual  additions  made  to  it,"  brought  great  confusion 
into  it,  which  the  printed  editions  seem  to  have  in- 
creased. 

[The  Masora  has  been  pu  Wished  more  or  less  imper- 
fectly. Rabbi  Mejer  Hallevi,  often  called  Haramah, 
made  a  useful  catalogue  of  the  words  in  the  Pentateuch, 
of  which  there  occurs  dfull  or  defective  reading^  with  a 
reference  to  passages  where  the  reading  is  found.  His 
work  shows  the  state  of  the  text  in  his  time,  the  thir- 
teenth century." 

The  Masora  remained  in  this  state  until  Daniel  Bom- 
berg  induced  Rabbi  Jacob  Ben  Chajim  to  cleanse  this 
Augean  stable.  He  revised  the  Masora  word  by  word, 
arranged  and  improved  it,  united  the  passages  omitted  in 
an  index  known  by  the  name  of  Masora  Maxima,  or 
Finalis.  The  result  of  his  work  was  the  celebrated 
Rabbinical  Bible  of  Bomberg.'^  Then  the  elder  Buxtorf 
attempted  to  improve  Bomberg's  Bible ;  but,  in  his  zeal 
to  extirpate  the  tares,  "  he  rooted  up  much  good  wheat 
with  them,"  and  in  many  places  created  a  new  Masora.]  * 

"  J.  H.  JMichadis,  Prsef.  ad  Bib.  Heb. ;  Hal.  p.  6.  See  above,  note  a,  p.  349. 
There  is  a  later  addition  on  Levit.  iv.  35. 

*  [In  the  full  reading,  [lectio  plena,)  the  quiescent  letters  ^ ,  1 ,  s« ,  n ,  are 
written  out,  while  in  the  defective  reading,  {lectio  defectiva,)  they  are  not 
expressed.] 

"  [n^inb  a-^O  n"no>a  ^5:0.  Liber  Masoraj  Sepes  Legis;  Flor.  1750, 
small  fol. ;  Berlin,  1761.  It  is  a  valuable  aid  to  the  student  of  the  Masora. 
See  Wolf,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  746,  ii.  p.  536.  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  ed.  Brum, 
§  57,  58.    Eichhorn,  §  156,  136,  b.] 

'^  Biblia  Rabb.  Bomberg,  I.  cur.  Fel.  Pratensis ;  Venet.  1518.  Biblia 
Rabb.  Bomberg,  II.  cur.  R.  Jac.  Ben  Chajim  ;  ibid.  1526,  4  vols.  fol. 

'  Biblia  Rabb.,  &c.,  Buxtorfius ;  Basil,  1618,  1619,  4  vols,  fol.,  often 
bound  in  2.  [Buxtorf  has  been  severely  censured  by  Simon,  Hist.  crit.  du 
V.  T.  p.  513,  Disquis.  crit  ch.  xiii.  p.  103,  and  Lettres  Choisies,  p.  176. 
See  a  defence  of  Buxtorf  in  Carpzov,  p.  413,  sqq.  See  other  editions  in 
RosenmixUer,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  260,  sqq.  See  Eichhorn,  §  156,  b,  and  393,  sqq. 
Tychsen,  Tent.  p.  217.] 


§91.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  353 


§91 

THE  LABORS  OF  THE  MASORITES  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE 

MASORA 

The  Masorites  made  critical,  grammatical,  orthograph- 
ical, and  other  emendations  of  the  received  text,  which 
was  then  established  by  use."  These  are  contained 
in  the  (so  called)  Keri  and  Kethih.  They  made  these 
emendations  partly  on  the  authority  of  tradition,  and 
partly  on  that  of  their  own  judgment.''     They  also  ad- 


*  Eichhorn,  §  129,  erroneously,  speaks  of  a  masoretic  recension.  [If,  by 
recension,  Eichhorn  means  an  alteration  of  the  text  by  removing  what  ap- 
peared spurious,  and  inserting  better  readings,  there  are  no  reasons  to  support 
this  opinion ;  for  the  fact  that  several  letters  and  words,  which  obviously  do 
not  belong  to  the  text,  are  suffered  to  remain  in  it,  while  the  correction  is 
made  in  the  margin,  the  word  left  unpointed,  or  tlie  form  of  the  letter  changed, 
shows  how  fearful  they  were  of  altering  a  word  or  letter  of  the  text  itself. 
But  if  he  means  a  revision  of  the  text,  a  collection  and  comparison  of  various 
readings,  then  the  state  of  the  text,  the  testimony  of  Jewish  writers,  and  the 
common  consent  of  the  learned,  furnish  abundant  evidence  that  the  Maso- 
rites made  the  chief  recension,  and  their  successors  added  to  their  remarks, 
so  that  the  notes  of  the  former  and  latter  cannot  now  be  distinguished.] 

The  following  remark  of  Cappellus,  p.  393,  is  pertinent  Juxta  illud  Judse- 
orum  effatum,  quo  consent  lectionem  rou  Keri  semper  esse  veriorem,  planum 
est,  diversitatem  lectionis  non  esse  ortam  ab  hsesitatione  Massoretharum  inter 
codicum  dissentientium  discrepantiam,  utra  potior  esset  lectio,  ambigentium, 
sed  esse  potius  certum  eorumdem  de  varia  lectione  judicium,  utra  sibi  videa- 
tur  potius  sequenda,  quod  satis  indicant,  cum  lectioni,  quam  in  margine 
notant,  adscribunt  banc  litteram  p,  h.  e.  "ip  legito,  illud  enim  prodit 
eorum  non  hsesitationem  et  dubitationem,  sed  certum  judicium. 

''  It  is  still  a  controverted  point  among  the  critics  whether  these  correc- 
tions were  derived  from  tradition  and  the  MSS.  exclusively,  or  exclusively 
from  the  judguient  of  the  Masorites.  On  the  one  side  are  the  following,  viz. : 
Dav.  Kimchi,  Ephodaus,  and  other  rabbins ;  Jo.  Morinus,  p.  630 ;  RicL  Si- 
mon, 1.  c.  p.  141,  sqq. ;  Buxtorf,  the  younger,  Anticrit  ii.  4;  Carpzov,  p.  340. 
Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  40.  On  the  other  side  are  Loscher,  1.  c.  p.  441 ; 
Pfaff,  Primit.  (Tubingen,)  p.  74 ;  J.  A  Danz,  Literator  Heb.  p.  57.    Some 

VOL.  I.  45 


354  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [§  ^1* 

mitted  the  critical  remarks  of  the  Talmud,  and  extended 
them  in  some  places,  as  in  the  Keri  velo  Kethih." 

Besides,  thej  ventm-ed  to  make  conjectures  on  difficult 
words,    though    resting  on   a   grammatical   foundation.* 


critics  more  pertinently  refer  tliese  corrections  to  botli  sources,  viz.,  Walton, 
Prol.  viii,  25,  Cappellus,  Crit  sac.  vol.  i.  p.  344,  sqq.  [Jfalton  derives  all 
these  emendations,  except  the  euphemisms,  and  the  alteration  of  "l>'2  to 
,1^53 '  and  the  reading  'D'^b-^,"!'] ,  (see  Gesenitis,  sub  voce,)  from  a  com- 
parison of  the  MSS.  Matt.  Hitler,  in  Arcano  Keri  et  Kethib,  (Tiib,  1692, 8vo.,) 
lib.  i.  p.  24,  advances  the  monstrous  opinion,  that  Ezra,  the  scribe,  made 
several  copies  of  the  Bible,  with  his  own  hands,  but  did  not  always  insert  the 
same  words  in  the  text,  so  that  tliere  was  that  difference  in  his  copies  which 
now  exists  between  Ps.  xviii.  and  2  Sam.  xxii.  His  successors,  seeing  this 
diversity,  compared  all  his  MSS.,  and  wrote  the  variants  in  the  margin.  The 
martrinal  and  the  textual  readings,  therefore,  are  equally  authentic,  and 
alike  inspired.  This  opinion  requires  no  confutation ;  but  an  elaborate  one 
may  be  found  in  Carpzov,  p.  336,  and  Wolf,  vol.  ii.  p.  517,  sqq. ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  Wagenseil,  in  a  letter  to  Leibnitz,  thinks  Hillel  himself  was  in- 
spired with  this  opinion  by  a  divine  afflatus;  and  even  Stark  calls  him 
an  "  CEdipus."] 

°  Critical  Keris: —  1.  Different  divisions  of  words:  e.  g.  Ps.  Iv.  16,  Keth. 
ni?a''U:"i,  Ker.  t<Tn  'iffi'2;  Ps.  cxxiii.  4,  Keth,  ti'^rriA^i,  Ker.  Cj'^:ii  'i^^p> 
2  Ch.  xxxiv.  6,  Qir^ria  ^n:i ,  Ker.  tn^ninna  ■  2.  Transposition  of  the  con- 
sonants: 1  Kings  vii.  45,  Keth.  'bni^n,  Ker.  H^i^rt;  Prov.  xxiii.  26,  Keth, 
rtiS'in ,  Ker.  n3"ii:?i .  3.  Alterations  of  the  consonants :  Ez.  xxv.  7,  Keth.  a^b , 
Ker.  tab ;  1  Kings  xii.  33,  Keth.  inVo  ,  Ker.  i2i3>3  .  4.  Misplacing  or  omit- 
ting consonants :  Am,  viii.  8,  Keth.  nD":53,Ker.  nyj^Tr;;;  Jos,  viii,  12,  Keth. 
^^:i^  ,  Ker.  "ly^ .    Grammatical :  —  In  Pentateuch,  oft,  Ketli.  N;-in ,  Ker.  ii^n . 

'  T  r 

Keth.  "1^3 ,  Ker.  n^SD ;  Jer.  xlii.  6,  Keth.  1;n  ,  Ker.  ^DTOs* ;  2  Sam.  xvii.  12, 
Keth.  nns^,  Ker,  inm.  O}ihographical:  —  Ez.  xxvii.  15,  Keth.  QiiSin . 
Ker.  ti^^^ir: ;  2  Ch.  viii.  16,  Keth.  m-'DlK ,  Ker.  tni'^ps .  Glosses :  —  Prov.  xx, 
20,  Keth.  'T\m  lild^ija,  Ker.  ^"^n  "^^ri^a.  Euphemisms.  See  §89.  Comp, 
Cappell.  i.  188,  sqq.,  p.  174.  Walton,  viii.  21.  Eichhorn,  §  149,  Jablonsky, 
Prffif.  ad  Bib.  Heb,  §  13, 

''  -I'^n'^nD,  on  Ex.  iv.  19,  Q'^'is^a  nti  'rd  is  remarked:  n?a'^^2>a  I'^^'^aD  'n  • 
Comp.  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  146, 


^91.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  355 

They   also    noticed    the    exegetical,    grammatical,    and 
orthographical  difficulties  and  peculiarities." 

[No  manuscript  nor  edition  affords  a  complete  list  of 
the  Keris  and  Kethihs  now  extant.  They  differ  from 
one  another  both  in  the  number  and  the  position  of 
the  reading.  Many  Keris  were  first  marked  by  critics 
who  lived  after  the  sixth  century,  and  were  introduced 
into  only  such  manuscripts  as  contain  their  revision. 
Therefore  one  manuscript  often  has  in  the  text  what 
another  places  in  the  margin  ;  and  this  is  the  greatest 
difference  between  eastern  and  western  readings.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  such  editions  as  do  not  copy  one 
another.  It  often  happens  that  the  vowels  do  not  agree 
with  the  consonants  of  the  text,  where  there  is  no  Keri 
in  the  margin ;  and  this  shows  that  the  vowels  in  ques- 
tion were  taken  from  a  manuscript  containing  one  Keri 
more  than  the  others.*      In   this   manner  the   different 

"  Exegetical:  —  "  Verbum  2-'a""3  cum  S'^il^l^x  conjunctum,  pro  jwrare^er 
Deum,  quater  reperitur,  quorum  loca  traduntur  1  Sam.  xxx.  15.  Gen.  xxix. 
9,  ad  ns*  :  Tria  sunt  in  triplici  significatione,  nempe  hie  sigmficat  pascere, 
secundo  Jes.  xxiv.  19,  confringendo,  tertio  Prov.  xxv.  19,  malus  (dens.)  Ps. 
xxii.  17,  ad  "'^^^' :  Duo  sunt  cum  Kamez  in  duplici  significatione."  Bitx- 
torf.  1.  c.  p.  143,  sq.  Grammatical :  —  "  Gen.  i.  22,  ad  Q'^S^^  nolant,  tria  esse 
dagessata,  i.  e.  cum  Patach  sub  "2  sequente  Dagesh.  Gen.  xvi.  13,  ad  "N"! 
S  y?Cp  E]'jn  fl"'^.  J^on  exstat  amplius  cum  Chatephkam^z.  Gen.  i.  5,  ad 
^■S:b  :  V'-^'^_t>  't  septem  sunt  cum  Kamez."  Buxtorf,  1.  c.  p.  144,  147.  Or- 
thographical commonly  relate  to  the  full  and  defective  reading.  El.  Levita, 
Mas.  Hammas.  vol.  i.  p.  101.  [In  Genesis  i.  12,  on  N^im  it  remarks, 
"The  word  occurs  twice  with  the  1  in  the  middle  and  once  without 
it."  Elias  Levita,  1.  c,  gives  this  rule :  When  the  full  reading  occurs  oftener 
than  the  defective,  the  defective  readings  are  counted ;  but  when  the  de- 
fective exceed  the  number  of  the  full,  then  the  letters  are  enumerated.  Bux- 
torf, 1.  c.  p.  140,  sq.] 

*  \]\Ioidanus,  and  some  others,  erroneously  assert  that  all  the  copies  con- 
tam  the  same  number  of  Keris  and  Kethihs.     See  Walton,  Prol.  viii.  21.] 


356  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [%91. 

number  of  Keris  and  Kethihs  in  different  manuscripts  is 
accounted  for.  This  diversity  is  considerable  in  the 
manuscripts,  and  still  greater  in  the  printed  editions.]" 

The  enumeration  of  the  verses,  words,  and  consonants, 
and  the  remarks  on  their  peculiarities,  are  less  useful 
labors  of  the  Masorites.* 

[The  Masorites  enumerated  the  passages  in  which 
letters  are  found  inverted  or  suspended,  unusually  large 
or  small,  and  in  which  a  final  is  put  for  a  medial,  or  a 
medial  for  a  final  letter.  From  all  these  peculiarities, 
they  affirmed  that  important  inferences  were  to  be 
drawn,  and  advised  the  reader  to  draw  them,  or  oftener 
performed  this  service  themselves.  They  counted  the 
verses  in  all  the  books  of  the  Bible ;  but  they  do  not 
agree  with  the  Talmud  or  the  present  editions  in  this 
enumeration.  It  may  gratify  the  curious  to  know  that 
the  Talmud  makes  5888  verses  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  eight 
more  in  the  Psalms,  and  eight  less  in  the  Chronicles ; 
that  there  are  twenty-six  verses  in  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
each  of  which  contains  all  the  consonants  in  the  alpha- 
bet ;  three  verses  which  contain  eighty  letters  apiece, 
and  one  (Jer.  xxi.  7)  which  contains  forty-two  words, 
consisting  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  consonants ;  that 
the  first  letter  occurs  42,377  times  in  the  Bible,  and 
the  sum  total  of  all  the  letters  is  815,280.  They  must 
also  be  told  that  Shickard,  and  Elias  the  Levite,  and 

°  [EicKhorn,  §  149.  Znlienthal,  De  Codd.  Regiomont  p.  42.  Jahlonshj, 
1.  c.  §  13.  The  Keris  in  the  whole  Bible,  in  the  second  Venice  edition,  are 
1171 ;  793  in  Plantings  second  edition ;  983  in  Bib.  Reg. ;  and  848  in 
Elias  Levita.  Walton,  Prol.  viii.  21.  See  Cappellus,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  173,  sqq. 
p.  422—476.] 

>>  Buxtorf,  1.  c.  ch.  xii.  xviii.  The  S^tCB ,  (pausa,  cessatio.)  or  JStaa'ilO , 
{ngay^icc,  negotium,)  and  5^>3a'i^5,  [divisio,  hiatus,)  is  not  a  critical  mark. 
Buxtorf,  Clav.  Mas.  p.  280.     Vogel  ad  Cappellus,  vol.  i.  p.  458,  sq 


^91.] 


HISTORY    OF   THE    TEXT. 


357 


Brian  Walton,  and  many  other  great  clerks,  doubt  the 
truth  of  these  latter  statements,  and  think  there  are  at 
least  1,200,000  letters  in  the  Bible." 

But,  after  all  this,  it  may  be  asked,  What  have  the 
Masorites  done  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  text? 
Much  of  their  labor  was,  doubtless,  unprofitable  ;  their 
enumeration  of  the  words,  letters,  and  points,  their 
childish  conjectures  and  puerile  remarks,  were  never  of 
any  value.  But  many  Jews  and  Christians,  says  Eich- 
horn,  have  censured  them  too  bitterly.  We  must  thank 
them  for  restoring  readings  from  very  ancient  manu- 
scripts, perhaps  older  than  the  time  of  Christ,  at  least 
far  older  than  the  best  of  Kennicott's  authorities.  The 
Masora  is  the  only  source  whence  we  can  derive  infor- 
mation to  aid  us  in  correcting  our  modern  manuscripts. 
It  has  done  much  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  text,  but 
it  could  not  do  all ;  "  for  the  sacred  fount  had  been 
troubled  by  wild  waters  before  the  Masorites  threw  up 
their  dam."  Before  their  time,  errors  had  stolen  upon 
the  text,  which  they  could  not  file  away,  with  all  their 
painstaking.       Long  before  them,  mystical   heads  had 


"  [JValton,  Prol.  viii.  8.  Eichhorn,  §  143,  sqq.  For  a  list  of  the  passages 
containing  unusual  letters,  &c.,  see  Walton,  Prol.  viii.  4 — 11,  or  a  more  co- 
pious account  of  all  these  matters  in  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  1,  c.  ch.  xii.  —  xix. 
The  Tiberias  is  a  classic  work  on  the  subject,  and  its  reader  will  wonder 
equally  at  the  painful  diligence  of  the  author,  and  the  folly  of  the  writers  he 
quotes  or  comments  upon.  The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  times 
each  letter  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  is  taken  from  Walton,  Prol. 
viii.  8. 

a, 11,052 

^ , 66,420 

5, 48,253 

V, 41,517 

)2, 77,778 

3 , 41,696 

D, 13,580 


S«, 42,377 

38,218 

29,537 

32,530 

47,554 

76,922 

22,867 


S, 

a, 

n, 

r\, 

1, 

^, 

n, 23,437 


51, 20,175 

5, 22,725 

-2, 21,882 

p, 22,972 

^, 22,147 

":j, 32,148 

n, 59,343.] 


358  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  92. 

been  making  sport  with  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and,  to  jus- 
tify their  folfy,  had  removed  and  misplaced  consonants, 
and  mangled  words,  in  the  most  capricious  manner. 
Before  their  time,  copies  were  found  of  such  different 
value,  that  the  Talmud  hazarded  a  classification  of  the 
manuscripts.  Is  it  not  probable  that  the  Masorites,  in 
the  sixth  century,  founded  their  chief  recension  of  the 
text  on  the  best  manuscripts  then  extant  ?  After  their 
time,  the  "  hedge "  they  had  placed  about  the  Bible 
was  often  overleaped.  Where  is  the  manuscript  which 
is  —  I  will  not  say  accurately  written,  but  —  accurately 
corrected  after  the  masoretic  recension?  Finally,  it  is 
much  to  be  regretted  that,  in  the  Masora,  the  early  and 
later  recensions  of  the  Jews  are  confounded  together ; 
in  short,  that  we  can  no  longer  separate  the  old  maso- 
retic recension  from  the  new.  But  the  present  con- 
dition of  the  text  would  have  been  far  worse  if  the 
Masorites  had  not  made  their  attempt.] " 

§92. 

EASTERN  AND   WESTERN   READINGS 

At  the  end  of  the  second  edition  of  Bomberg's  Rab- 
binical Bible,  Rabbi  Jacob  Ben  Chajim*  added  a  list  — 
of  which  no  one  knows  the  author  or   date'  —  of  the 


"  [Ekhhorn,  ^\5S.] 

''  Walton,  Prol.  viii.  27,  makes  a  mistake  when  he  says  these  readings 
were  published  in  the  edition  of  Felix  Pratensis.  Others  have  copied  the 
error ;  but  it  is  corrected  by  Brum,  in  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  41.  The  list 
may  be  found  in  Drusius,  De  recta  Ling.  Heb.  Pronunciatione,  and  in  fFal- 
ton,  Bib.  Polyg.  vol.  vi. 

'  See  Buxtorf,  Anticrit  p.  510.  Morinus,  p.  409,  thinks  he  has  found  tliis 
list  in  some  old  MSS.  of  the  Bible.  Elia^  Levita,  Vor.  zu  Mas.  Hammas, 
p.  35,  places  it  in  the  eighth  century  ;  but,  according  to  his  calculation,  the 


§  92.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  359 

various  readings  of  the  Babylonian  and  Palestine  Jews, 
to  the  number  of  216 — 220.  All  these  —  except  two, 
which  refer  to  n"  —  relate  merely  to  the  consonants; 
therefore  the  comparison  of  manuscripts  from  which  these 
readings  arose  must  have  been  made  in  a  time  before  the 
vowel  points  were  added  to  the  text.*  For  the  most 
part,  these  variants  relate  to  trifles,  and  frequently  to  the 
Keri  and  Kethib."  They  are  not  always  confirmed  by 
the  western  manuscripts. "^  If  this  list  is  authentic  and 
correct,  it  shows  that  the  Babylonian  Masorites  kept 
pace  with  those  of  Palestine. 

Talmud  must  have  closed  with  the  end  of  the  seventh  century.  Notwith- 
standing this,  his  opinion  has  been  generally  followed.  [See  Eichhorn, 
§  131.  Jahn,  p.  394.]  But,  according  to  the  combinations  of  Gesenius, 
Gesch.  Heb.  Sprache,  p.  202,  it  must  be  dated  earlier.  [The  two  rival 
schools  of  Palestine  and  Babylon  continued  to  flourish  from  the  sixth  to  the 
eleventh  century,  and  by  repeated  transcriptions  at  each,  two  families  of 
MSS.  were  founded ;  but  the  difference  between  the  two  related  "  rather  to 
orthography  than  to  orthodoxy,"  as  Buxtorfh^iS  said,  1.  c.  p.  510.] 

"  [Jer.  vi.  6.  Amos  iii.  6.  It  is  conjectured  by  some  that  these  two  ref- 
erences were  added  at  a  later  date ;  for  they  presuppose  the  existence  of  a 
pointed  text,  which  was  not  known  when  the  catalogue  was  made.] 

*  Cappellus,  vol.  L  p.  426,  sqq.  Buxtorf,  Anticrit  p.  511,  sqq.  [This 
catalogue  contains  no  variants  from  the  Pentateuch.  JaJin  attempts  to  ex- 
plain this  remarkable  fact  by  supposing  that  the  Pentateuch  was  transcribed 
and  corrected  with  greater  care  than  the  other  books,  p.  394.  Whoever  the 
author  of  this  catalogue  was,  or  whenever  he  lived,  it  is  certain  either  that 
he  made  it  very  carelessly,  or  used  MSS.  very  different  from  our  present 
editions  of  the  Bible ;  for  he  departs  widely  from  them  in  giving  the  western 
readings.     Cappellus,  p.  423.] 

"  Cappellus,  1.  c.  p.  423,  sqq.  [The  following  are  three  of  the  most  re- 
markable of  these  readings  :  — 

1  Sam.  XV.  6.      Western, .  .  .  I^SS ;  Eastern,  =  .  .  .  .  i«3> . 

xvii.  25. ns?3n  'IS ; nx?2n  >25t  '^^ . 

2  Sam.  XV.  3.       .    "j'^ISI ;  ....  '^IST ,  in  singular. 

The  eastern  often  has  "^ilN  where  the  western  has  mtTi .  Eichhorn,  §  131, 
Jahn,  1.  c,  and  Cappellus,  1.  c] 

^  See  Zeibich,  De  Dissens.  Orient,  et  Occident,  in  (Elrich,  Coll.  Opusc. 
vol.  ii. 


i 


360  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  93 


§93. 

COMPLETION  OF  THE  PUNCTUATION  OF  THE  TEXT.   READ- 
INGS OF  BEN  ASHER  AND  BEN  NAPHTALI. 

There  is,  also,  in  the  Bibles  of  Buxtorf  and  Bomberg, 
and  in  the  London  Polyglot,  a  catalogue  of  various  read- 
ings, by  Rabbi  Aaron  Ben  x4sher,  and  Rabbi  Jacob  Ben 
Naphtali,  from  the  eleventh  century."  The  former  fol- 
lows the  western,  the  latter  the  eastern  Jews.* 

These  variants  relate  solely  to  the  vowels  and  ac- 
cents," from  which  it  has  been  thought  that,  at  their 
time,  the  punctuation  of  the  text  was  completed,  and 
the  unpointed  text  was  out  of  use.*^ 

[These  variants  amount  to  eight  hundred  and  sixty- 
four  in  the  Bibles  of  Buxtorf  and  Bomberg  ;  but  Walton 
has  somewhat  enlarged  their  number  from  an  old  manu- 
script. It  may  be  said  that  Ben  Asher  and  Ben  Naph- 
tali  put  the  last  hand  to  the  system  of  punctuation ;  and 
perhaps  its  introduction,  supported  by  the  authority  of 
such  distinguished  teachers,  led  to  the  neglect  of  the 
unpointed  manuscripts,  and  is  the  cause  why  no  Hebrew 
manuscripts  have  come  down  to  us  from  a  date  earlier 
than  the  eleventh  century,  while  we  have  Greek  and 

"  The  former  was  a  Palestine,  the  latter  a  Babylonian  Jew.  Both,  per- 
haps, were  presidents  of  academies,  according  to  Gedaliah.  They  lived  about 
1034.  Buxtorf,  De  Punct  Antiq.  i.  15.  Walton,  Prol.  iv.  §  9.  Maimonides, 
in  Hilc.  Sept.  Thorse,  viii.  4,  mentions  a  manuscript  of  the  Bible,  which  was 
corrected  by  Ben  Asher. 

^  Elias  Levita,  1.  c.  p.  37.     But  compare  Mercer,  in  Gen.  xli.  50. 

"  Elias,  1.  c.  Walton,  Prol.  viii.  29.  There  is  an  exception  to  this  in 
Cant.  viii.  6 :  n^'ian^ffi  is  divided  into  two  words,  rT^  n^n^Ta  ,  by  Ben  Asher ; 
but  the  sense  is  the  same  in  both  cases. 

"^  Walton,  Prol.  iv.  8.  Eichhom,  §  133.  Michadis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xviii. 
p.  102,  sq. 


^94.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  o61 

Syriac  manuscripts  from  a  much  greater  antiquity.  Our 
printed  editions,  for  the  most  part,  follow  the  oriental 
pointing  and  accentuation.] " 


§94. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXT  UNTIL  THE  INVENTION  OF  PRINTING. 

After  the  time  when  the  text  appears  to  have  become 
established,  the  manuscripts,  it  is  probable,  became  more 
and  more  uniform  with  the  Masora.  But  they  were 
not  all  uniform,  as  it  appears  from  the  numerous  unmas- 
oretic  readings  found  in  the  manuscripts.*  However, 
after  this  time,  no  important  alterations  could  be  made 
in  the  text." 

[In  the  eleventh  century,  the  Jews  were  driven  from 
their  seats  in  the  East,  and,  for  the  most  part,  took 
refuge  in  Europe.  They  seem  to  have  introduced  the 
pointed  manuscripts,  and  a  greater  regard  for  grammat- 
ical study  of  the  Hebrew.  To  this  latter  cause,  perhaps, 
we  are  to  ascribe  the  superiority  of  the  manuscripts  of  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  over  those  of  an  earlier 
date.  The  rabbins  of  this  period,  Maimonides,  Aben 
Ezra,  Kimchi,  and  Jarchi,  often  cite  a  text  different 
from  that  now  in  use.]*^ 

Reverence  for  the  Scriptures,  so  carefully  fostered  by 
the  Masora,  would  scarcely  allow  any  alterations  made 
to   suit  the  Targums  or  the  science  of  grammar,  then 

"  [Cappdlus,  1.  c.  p.  439,  sqq.    John,  1.  c.  p.  344.] 

*  De  Rossi,  Diss,  prelim.,  prefixed  to  book  iv.  of  his  Varr.  Lect  p.  xix. 

'  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  50,  has  collected  proofs  of  the  prevalent  diversi- 
ties of  the  text  at  this  period,  viz.,  from  about  1000  to  1450  A.  C. 

■^  [Cappellamis,  Mare  Rabbinicum  infidum ;  1667,  p.  58,  72,  187,  et  al. 
Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xviii.  p.  102.     Kennicott,  1.  c.  §  51,  sqq.] 

VOL.  I.  46 


S62  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  94. 

SO  zealously  pursued,"  to  intrude  upon  the  text  when 
its  form  was  once  established.*  [Slight  alterations, 
however,  it  appears,  were  actually  made  from  the 
Targums,  and  for  the  sake  of  rendering  the  gram- 
matical structure  more  perfect.  Sometimes  the  text 
of  the  manuscript  did  not  agree  with  the  Targums, 
and  its  possessor  would  make  the  text  conform  to 
the  paraphrase.  Thus  arose  the  slight  differences  in 
punctuation,  and  the  division  of  vowels,  and  even 
in  consonants  and  words,  which  are  still  found  in 
the  manuscripts.  As  the  Targums  were  often  w^ritten 
on  the  margin  of  the  text,  so  an  occasion  was  offered 
for  interpolating  the  one  from  the  other.  But  the 
present  state  of  the  text,  perhaps,  justifies  a  suspicion, 
rather  than  a  positive  assertion,  that  attempts  have 
been  made,  in  some  instances,  to  produce  this  confor- 
mity. There  are  j^assages  in  which  the  manuscri|3ts  do 
not  agree — where  the  old  versions  support  one  reading, 
and  the  Targums  another.  In  such  cases,  the  reading 
which  agrees  with  the  Targum  is  properly  suspected. 
Perhaps  the  alterations  to  suit  the  rules  of  grammar 
are  still  more  rare.]" 

When  the  rabbins  of  the  middle  ages  adhered  to  old 
and  celebrated  manuscripts,  they  seem  to  have  been  such 
as  had  the  truest  copies  of  the  masoretic  text  for  their 


John,  1.  c.  p.  400,  sq.,  thinks  the  text  has  not  been  altered  from  the  Tar- 
gums, but  rather  the  Targums  from  the  text.  In  this  he  departs  from  the 
opinion  expressed  in  the  former  edition  of  his  work,  and  also  from  Ekhhorn, 
§  134.  Kennicott,  Diss.  ii.  super  Ratione  Text  Heb.  p.  173,  sqq.,  thinks  the 
Targums  have  been  altered  to  conform  to  the  text 

*  Meir  Hallevi,  about  1250,  complains  of  the  corruption  of  the  MSS. ; 
but  his  complaint  relates  chiefly  to  the  scriptio  plena  et  defediva.  See  his 
preface  to  the  Masora,  inserted  by  Bruns,  in  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  113, 
sqq.    Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  44. 

'  [Eichhom,  §  134,  sq.,  218,  sqq.] 


^  94.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  3G3 

basis."     [Among    these    celebrated   manuscripts,    often 
quoted,  are  :  — 

1.  Hillel's  manuscript.  It  is  from  the  hand  of  a 
deceiver,  and  has  no  critical  value,  yet  attained  a  great 
celebrity  from  the  name  of  its  reputed  author.  Its 
writer  is  unknown.  Some  ascribe  it  to  the  Hillel  who 
lived  a  century  before  Christ ;  others  to  Hillel  the 
Prince,  who  lived  in  Palestine  340  A.  C."  Kimchi,  in 
the  thirteenth,  and  Rabbi  Zadok,  in  the  fifteenth  centu- 
ry, speak  of  it  as  still  extant. 

2.  The  rabbins  often  cite  a  Babylonian  manu- 
script, which  is,  perhaps,  the  recension  made  by  Ben 
Naphtali.* 

3.  Ben  Asher's  recension  is,  perhaps,  the  work  re- 
ferred to  as  the  manuscript  of  Israel,  and  the  Jerusalem 
and  Egyptian  manuscript." 

4.  The  codex  Sinai  contains  only  the  Pentateuch, 
and  is  remarkably  accurate  in  its  accentuation. 

5.  The  Pentateuch  of  Jericho  is  esteemed  the  most 
accurate  in  respect  to  the  full  and  defective  readings. 

6.  The  codex  Sanbuki,  which  Richard  Simon  found 
cited  on  the  margin  of  a  manuscript,  and  which  is  some- 
times referred  to  by  Menachem  de  Lonzano  and  Solo- 
mon Norzi.'' 


"  Hoitins;tr,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  105,  sqq.  Carpzov,  Crit  sac.  p.  368,  sqq, 
Kennicotf,  Diss.  Gen.  §  54 — 56. 

''  [See  above,  §  93.] 

"  [Maimonides,  Hil.  Seph.  Thorsu  ch.  viii.  p.  4,  says,  "  The  book  on  which 
we  rely,  in  these  matters,  is  very  celebrated  in  Egypt.  It  was  kept  many 
years  at  Jerusalem,  that  other  copies  might  be  corrected  from  it.  All  of  us 
rely  upon  this,  because  Ben  Asher  corrected  it,  often  revised  it,  and  spent 
many  years  in  laboring  diligently  upon  it,"  Walton,  Prol.  iv.  9.  Eichhorn 
thinks  the  MS.  of  Israel  is  not  the  same  as  the  Egyptian  MS.  Bruns  apud 
Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  54.] 

■^  [Rabbi  Menachem  de  Lonzano,  Or  Thorah,  (Berol.  1745,  4to,,)  fol.  13, 


364  HISTORY    OF    TIIR    TEXT.  [$s  95. 

7.  The  book  Taggin,  which  Jacob  Ben  Chajim 
places  beside  "the  most  accurate  manuscripts.""  But 
all  of  these,  with  the  manuscripts  containing  eastern 
and  western  readings  of  Ben  Asher  and  Ben  Naphtali, 
are  lost.]* 

§95. 

THE  PRINTED   TEXT.     PRINCIPAL  EDITIONS  OR   RECENSION?. 

[In  general,  the  early  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
are  printed  on  parchment,  in  large,  black  letters,  with  a 
wide  margin.  The  initial  letters  and  words  are  not 
printed,  but  executed  with  a  pen,  or  wooden  stamp,  and 
ornamented.  They  are  without  a  title-page  at  the 
beginning,  but  have  the  name  of  the  work  at  the  end. 
They  are  without  points,  and  are  not  remarkable  for 
accuracy.] " 

Separate  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  first  appeared  in 
print.  The  Psalter,  with  Kimchi's  commentary,  was 
first  printed  in  1477,  probably  at  Bologna.  [It  contains 
one  hundred  and  forty-nine  leaves,  small  folio  ;  it  has 
not  the  less  and  greater,  the  extended  and  final  let- 
ters. It  is  without  the  points,  except  in  Ps.  i. — iv.  2, 
and  V.  12,  13,  vi.  1,  which  are  rudely  pointed.  It  is 
printed  w^ith  numerous  abbreviations  and  omissions.  It 
has  no  accents  except  Soph  pasiik.  It  is  printed  very 
carelessly,    for    sometimes    whole    verses    are    left   out. 

col.  3,  and  fol.  15,  col.  4,  cited  in  Eichhom,  §  374.     Tychsen,  Tent.  p.  219, 
249.] 

[See  specimens  of  the  readings  of  these  MSS.  in  Eichhom,  Repert.  vol. 
xii.  p.  242,  sqq.] 

''  [Eichhom,  §  136,  374.     Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  54—58,  sqq.] 

[De  Rossi,  Annales  Heb.  Typog.     See  Tychsen's  Essay  on  the  Penta- 
teuch, printed  at  Bologna,  1482,  in  Eichhom's  Repert.  vol.  vi.  p.  77,  sqq,] 


^  95.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  365 

mni  is  often  omitted,  and  an  empty  space  left,  with  an 
inverted  u  in  it." 

The  Psalter  was  again  printed  in  duodecimo,  without 
place  or  date,  but,  as  it  is  supposed,  between  1477  and 
1480 ;  again,  about  the  same  time,  in  the  same  form, 
but  with  an  index  and  certain  peculiar  benedictions.^ 
The  whole  Pentateuch  was  printed,  with  the  points, 
the  Chaldee  paraphrase,  and  Jarchi's  commentary,  at 
Bologna,  in  1482,  folio.  Ruth,  Ecclesiastes,  Solomon's 
Song,  and  the  Lamentations,  were  published,  with 
Jarchi's  commentary,  and  Esther,  with  that  of  Aben 
Ezra,  as  it  is  conjectured,  at  the  same  place  and  time." 
Then  the  Early  and  Later  Prophets,  with  Kimchi's 
commentary,  appeared  in  two  folios,  at  Soncino,  in 
I486.]'' 

The  various  modern  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
may  be  traced  to  the  following  sources,  namely  :  — 

L  The  entire  Hebrew  Bible  was  first  printed  at  Son- 
cino, in  1488,  in  small  folio.     This  edition,  it  appears, 

"  [See  Tychseri's  description  of  this  edition  in  Eichhorn,  1.  c.  vol.  v.  p.  134, 
sqq.]  On  this  and  other  ancient  editions  of  tlie  O.  T.,  see  J.  B.  de  Rossi,  De 
Hcbr.  Typographiae  Origine  ac  Primitiis,  sive  antiquis  et  rarissimis  Heb.  Bib. 
Edit  Sec.  xv. ;  Farm.  1776,  4to.,  rec.  cum  Prajf.  Hufnagel;  Erl.  1778,  8vo. 
His  De  Typographia  Hebr.  Ferrariensi  Comment.  Hist. ;  Farm.  1780,  8vo., 
auct.  cum  Frref.  Hufnagel;  Erl.  1781, 8vo.  His  Annales  Typographic  Ebr. 
Sabionetens.  Appendice  aucti,  ex  Italicis  Latin,  fecit  J.  Fr.  Roos  ;  Erl.  1783, 
8vo.  No.  14,  17,  21,  22,  23,  29.  His  De  ignotis  nonnuUis  antiquiss.  Hebr. 
Textus  Editt.  et  critico  earum  Usu.  Accedit  de  Editt  Heb.  Bib.  Appendix 
hist  crit.  ad  Biblioth.  sac.  Le-Longio-Maschianam ;  Erl.  1782,  4to.  His 
Annales  Heb.  Typogr.  Sec.  xv. ;  Farm.  1795,  4to.  His  Annales  Typogr.  ab 
An.  loOl  ad  1540,  ib.  1799,  4to.  O.  G.  Tychsen,  1.  c.  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen. 
No.  255,  sqq.,  p.  436,  sqq.,  ed.  Bruns. 

*  [De  Rossi,  Annal.  p.  178.] 

"  [De  Rossi,  1.  c.  p.  130,  sqq.] 

^  [Tychsen,  in  Eichhorn^s  Repert.  vol.  vii.  p.  165,  sqq.,  and  viii.  51,  sqq. 
De  Rossi,  1.  c.  p.  40,  sqq.  For  a  full  account  of  these  editions,  see  Eichhorn, 
Einleit.  §392,  and  Rosenmi'dler,  Handbuch,  vol.  i.  p.  190,  sqq.] 


366  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  95. 

was  followed,  throughout,  by  that  printed  at  Brescia,  in 
1494."  [Bruns  makes  it  appear  that  this  edition  was 
made  neither  from  very  ancient,  nor  very  good,  manu- 
scripts. It  is  so  rare  that  only  nine  copies  are  known 
in  Europe.  There  were  twenty-seven  editions  of  the 
w^hole  or  a  part  of  the  Hebrew  text  before  the  sixteenth 
century.]  * 

II.  The  Hebrew  Bible  of  the  Complutensian  Poly- 
glot (1514 — 1517)  represents  an  indifferent  text,  which 
has  been  made  the  basis  of  subsequent  editions."  [This 
edition  was  the  work  of  Cardinal  Ximenes,  who  assem- 
bled the  most  learned  men  of  Spain  to  assist  him.  He 
expended  large  sums  in  the  purchase  of  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts, and  borrowed  those  of  the  Vatican  and  other 
libraries.''     Fourteen  years   were   spent   in    preparatory 


"  From  this  edition  tlie  following  descendants  have  proceeded :  The  first 
Bib.  Rab.  of  Bomberg,  1517,  1518,  ed.  Felix  Pratensis ;  Bomherg's  manual 
editions,  from  1518  to  1521,  in  4to. ;  Robert  Stephens's  editions,  in  4to.,  from 
1539  to  1544 ;  and  Sebastian  Miimter's  Bib.  Heb. ;  Basil,  1536,  2  vols.  4to. 
Lnither,  in  his  translation  of  the  O.  T.,  used  the  edition  of  Brescia,  1494.  [His 
copy,  it  is  said,  is  still  preserved  at  Berlin.]     See  /.  G.  Palm,  De  Codd.  V.  et 

N.  T.  quibus  Lutherus usus  est;  Hamb.  1753, 8vo.     B.  W.  D.  Schultz, 

Vollst.  Kritik  iib.  die  Ausgabe  der  Bib.  Heb. ;  Berlin,  1766,  8vo.  p.  13,  sqq., 
244,  sqq.  On  the  affinity  of  the  editions  of  Soncino  and  Brescia,  see  Bruns, 
in  Jlvimon,  Hanlein,  and  Paulus,  Theol.  Journal,  vol.  vi.  p.  757,  sq.  Annales 
Helmst. ;  1782,  vol.  i.  p.  110,  vol.  ii.  p.  237.  [  Gerson,  "  son  of  the  wise  Rabbi 
Moses,"  the  editor  of  the  Brescia  edition,  had  no  mean  opinion  of  his  own 
labors  ;  for  he  says,  "  This  incomparable  work  was  finished  (the  world  will 
therefore  be  filled  with  the  glory  of  the  Eternal)  in  the  year  1494,  at  Brescia, 
in  Venice,  whose  fame  will  he  exalted  thereby."] 

*  [See  Eichhorn's  remarks  upon  each  of  them,  §  392.] 

"  Namely,  of  Bib.  Polyg.  Bertrami,  ex  Officma  Sanctandri,  (1586,  fol.,)  and 
ex  Officina  Commelini,  (1599  and  1616.)  [Rosenmuller,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  279, 
sqq.  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  539.  Kennicott,  1.  c.  p.  347,  sqq.  Eichhom, 
§393,  a.] 

^  See  Alvarez  Gomez,  De  Gestis  Fi:  Ximenes,  (Complut.  1569,  fol.  lib.  ii. 
p.  47,)  who  says  he  collected  seven  Hebrew  MSS.,  which  are  now  at  Com- 
plutensium,  from  difierent  countries,  at  an  expense  of  40,000  ducats.     Com- 


§  95.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  367 

labors  before  the  first  volume  —  numbered  as  the  fifth, 
and  containing  the  New  Testament  —  appeared.  The 
Hebrew  text  differs,  it  is  said,  from  all  previous  editions  ; 
but  we  are  nowhere  told  it  was  derived  exclusively  from 
manuscripts.  It  agrees  very  closely  with  the  first  Bom- 
berg  edition,  of  1518,  which  follows  that  of  Brescia,  of 
1494,  whence  it  has  been  unfairly  conjectured  that  the 
Complutensian  text  was  also  derived  from  that  source. 
But  the  two  differ  in  many  places.  The  fate  of  the 
manuscripts  collated  is  not  known.  The  first  four  vol- 
umes contain  the  Hebrew,  Latin,  and  Greek  text  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  the  Chaldee  paraphrase,  with  a 
Latin  version  of  it  at  the  bottom  of  the  page.  The 
margin  contains  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  radicals.  The 
fifth  volume  contains  the  Greek  New  Testament,  with 
the  Vulgate.  The  sixth  contains  the  indices,  lexicons, 
and  other  aids.] 

III.  Bomberg's  second  edition  of  the  Rabbinical 
Bible;  Venice,  1525,  1526,  folio.  [This  contains  some 
readings  which  are  not  found  in  the  manuscripts,  the 
Masora,  or  the  older  editions.  They  are  mistakes,  but 
have  3^et  been  copied  into  the  Paris  and  London  Poly- 
glots." Bruns  says  Bomberg  did  not  desire  so  much  to 
obtain  good  manuscripts  of  the  Bible,  as  accurately  writ- 
ten Masora.  He  formed  his  text  rather  after  the  Masora 
than  after  the  manuscripts.]  Bomberg's  second  edition 
has  been  the  basis  of  most  of  the  subsequent  editions.* 


pare  Annales  Helmst.  vol.  i.  p.  110.  Rosenmiiller,  1,  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  279,  sqq. 
[This  is  the  title  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot:  Biblia  Sacra  V.  T. 
multiplici  Lingua  nunc  primo  impressum.  Et  imprimis  Pentateuchus  He- 
braico  atque  Chaldaico  Idiomate,  adjuncta  unicuique  sua  Latina  Interpre- 
tatione.] 

*  [Bruns,  in  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  449.] 

*■  The  following  editions  are  derived  from  it :  Bomberg's  3d  edition  of  the 


368  IHSTOKY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  95. 

IV.  The  Antwerp  Polyglot  (1569 — 1572)  represents 
a  mixed  text,  composed  from  the  two  last."  [The  first 
four  volumes  contain  the  Old  Testament ;  the  fifth,  the 
New  Testament;  and  the  others,  a  pretty  extensive 
biblical  apparatus,  partly  critical,  and  partly  of  a  philo- 
logical and  antiquarian  character.  The  Hebrew  text 
was  taken  from  the  Complutensian  Polyglot ;  but  Arias 
Montanus  had  corrected  it,  after  one  of  Bomberg's 
editions,  though  it  is  not  known  from  which.*  Only  five 
hundred  copies  were  printed,  and  of  them  many  were 
lost  at  sea.  It  was  published  at  the  expense  of  Philip 
II.  of  Spain,  and  is  therefore  often  called  the  "  royal 
Polyglot." 

Besides  the  above-named  text,  it  contains  the  para- 
phrase of  Onkelos  on  the  Pentateuch,  reprinted  from 
the  Complutensian  edition ;  that  on  the  other  books, 
from  the  Venetian  edition,  and  from  manuscripts.  The 
text  of  the  Septuagint  is  from  the  Aldine  and  Com- 
plutensian text.  The  sixth  and  subsequent  volumes 
contain    a    valuable    critical    and    philological    appara- 


Bib.  Rabb. ;  Venice,  1547 — 1549,  fol.  Bib.  Rabb.  per  Jo.de  Gara;  Venice, 
1568,  fol.  Bib.  Rabb.  Bragadini;  Venice,  1617,  1618,  fol.  Bomberg's 
manual  editions  of  1528,  1533, 1544, 4to.  Stephens's  editions  of  1 644—1646, 
16mo.  It  appears,  with  some  alterations,  in  Justiniani's  editions ;  Venice, 
1541,  4to.;  1552,  18mo.;  1563  and  1573,  4to.  Bib.  Heb.;  Genev.  1618, 
4to.,  8vo.,  and  18mo.  Bib.  Heb.  per  Jo.  de  Gara  ;  Venice,  1566,  4to. ;  1568, 
8vo. ;  1682,  4to.  Bib.  Heb.  Typ.  Bragadini ;  Venice,  1614,  1615,  4to.  and 
12nio. ;  1619,  4to. ;  1628,  4to. ;  1707.  Bib.  Heb.  Ch.  Plantinus;  Ant.  1566, 
4to.,  8vo.,  and  16mo.  Bib.  Heb.  Hartmanni;  Franeq.  1595,  4to.,  8vo.,  and 
16mo. ;  1598,  4to.     Bib.  Heb.  Typ.  Zach.  Cratonis ;  Viteb.  1586,  (1587,)  4to. 

"  [Bib  sac.  Heb.  Chald.  Grsece  et  Latine,  Philippi  II.  Reg.  Cath.  Pietate 
et  Studio  ad  sacrosanctae  Eccl.  Usum.  Ch.  Plantinus  excudebat ;  Ant.  1569 
—1572,  8  vols.  fol.  See  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  iv.  pt.  i.  p.  440,  sq.  Montlily 
Repository  for  1821,  vol.  xii.  p.  203,  and  for  1827,  new  series,  p.  572.  Petti- 
greiv,  Bib.  Sussex,  vol.  i.  pt.  ii.,  cited  in  Home.] 

*  [Le  Long,  Masch.  vol.  i.  p.  347.] 


§  95.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  369 

tus.]"     It  is  the   basis   of   numerous   editions,*   and   is 
repeated,  also,  in  the  Paris  and  London  Polyglots." 

V.  Hutter's  editions  (1587 — 1603)  also  contain  a 
mixed  text.''  [He  says,  in  his  preface,  that  he  used  the 
Venetian,  Antwerp,  and  Paris  copies,  as  the  best  of  all.] 
This  text  has  been  followed  in  several  other  editions." 

VI.  Buxtorf's  manual  edition  of  1611.-^ 


"  [Rosenmilller,  1.  c.  p.  296,  sqq.] 

*  Plantings  Editions.  — Ant  1571,  fo].,  1584,  fol.  Lug.  Bat.  1673,  8vo. 
Bib.  Heb.  Lat ;  Burg.  Aurac.  in  Hisp.  1.581,  fol.  Bib.  Heb.  Lat  ;  Genev. 
1618,  fol.  Bib.  Heb.  Lat.  sumptibus  Fr.  Knock ;  Franeq.  on  the  Mayne,  1618, 
fol.  Bib.  Heb.  Lat. ;  Vien.  1743,  8vo.  Bib.  sac.  quadriling.  accur.  Christ. 
Reineccius,  (Lips.  1750,  fol.,)  and  his  manuals,  (Lips.  1725,  8vo. ;  1739,  8vo. 
and  4to.;  1756,  1798,  8vo.) 

''  [The  foUowiag  is  the  title  of  the  Paris  Polyglot:  Bib.  Heb.,  Samarit, 
Chald.,  Grsec,  Syriaca, Lat.,  Arab.;  Lutetiae,  Par.  excudebat  Antonius  Vitre, 
1645,  10  vols.  fol.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  printed  in  this  work,  for 
the  first  time. 

The  London  Polyglot  iias  for  its  title.  Bib.  sac.  Polyg.,  Brianus  Waltonus ; 
Lond.  1657,  6  vols.  fol.  It  contains  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Antwerp  Poly- 
glot ;  the  Vatican  text  of  the  LXX.,  with  the  variants  of  the  Alexandrian 
codex ;  the  Vulgate,  after  the  Roman  edition  of  1587, 1588,  1592 ;  the  Tar- 
gums  ;  tlie  Persian  version  of  the  Pentateuch ;  the  ^Ethiopic  of  the  Psalm.s 
and  Canticles ;  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  versions ;  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
and  version,  with  the  necessary  Latin  translations  of  the  Oriental  versions, 
and  other  apparatus.  The  apocryphal  books  are  printed  in  Greek,  Latin, 
Syriac,  and  Arabic.  There  is  a  twofold  Hebrew  text  of  Tobit  See  Home, 
1.  c.  Bib.  Append,  pt.  i.  ch.  i.  See  Todd's  Life  of  Walton ;  Lond.  1821, 
2  vols.  8vo.] 

"^  Bib.  Heb.  Cura  et  Studio  Eliee  Hutteri;  Hamb.  1587,  fol.,  reprinted 
1588,  1596, 1603.     See  his  Prsef.  fol.  i.  p.  2. 

'  Bib.  Heb.  JVisselii,  (Lug.  Bat  1662,  8vo.,)  and  Hutter's  Polyglot,  which 
was  never  finished,  (Niirn.  1591,  fol.) 

^  d^'Jt'^nai  ti'i^icK^  u^in'^'n^i  niinn  ^ir^^n  n^^u  tm  ns>3im  c-'iry 

■linai  tlJ  )i'z^  p-'^nJa  a-imnsi  D'l3^^n» ,  [i.  e.  the  four-and-twenty  books 
which  are  the  five  fifths  of  the  Law,  the  early  and  later  Prophets,  and  the 
Hagiographa,  revised  with  the  greatest  care. 

In  this  edition  Buxtorf  followed  the  Masora.]  It  is  the  basis  of  Bib.  Heb. 
cum  Typis  Manasseh  Ben  Israel,  sumpt.  Janssonii ;  Amst.  1639,  8vo. ;  [his 
editions  of  1630,  1631,  and  1631—1635,  2  vols.  4to.,  have  a  different  text  of 
their  own.     Eichhorn,  §400;]  o^  Bvxtorfs  Bib.  Rabb.  1618,  1619,  [which, 

VOL.  I.  47 


370  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  95. 

VII.  Athias's  edition  of  16G1  and  1667."  [Jablon- 
ski,  who  followed  Athias,  in  1699 — 1712,  attempted  to 
con-ect  the  points  and  accents  as  well  as  the  text,  and 
had  recourse  to  the  Masora  and  other  works  of  the  Jews. 
He  is  the  first  author  w^ho,  after  proclaiming  the  actual 
occurrence   of  manj  variants   in   the    Hebrew   codices, 


however,  is  somewhat  corrected  from  the  Masora  ;]  and  of  the  Bib.  Rabb. 
Mosis  Francfurtensis  ;  Amst.  ]724,  fol.  4  vols. 

"  Bib.  Heb.  correcta  et  collata  cum  antiquissimis  et  accuratissimis  Ex- 
emplaribus  MSS.  et  hactenus  impressis,  Typis  Jos.  MhicB  ;  Amst.  1G61,  and 
1667,  8vo.,  \vith  LeusdtrCs  preface.  From  this  have  followed,  1.  Bib.  Hcb. 
Clodii ;  Franeq.  1677,  8vo. ;  recognit.  a  J.  H.  Majo,  et  ultimo  rev.  a  J.  Lcus- 
deno ;  ibid.  1699,  8vo.  Biblia  ad  optimorum  tum  impressorum  speciatim 
Clodii,  Jablonskii,  Opitii,  quam  Manuscriptorum  aliquot  Codd.  fidem  collata. 

Direxit  opus J.  H.  Majus ;  collat.  instituit G.  Chr.  Bilrdin  ;  ibid. 

1716,  4to Bib.  Heb.  ex  rec.  Ban  Ern.  Jablonskii ;  Ber.  1699,  8vo. 

Prffif.  §  6,  7 :  Editionem,  quam  sequeremur,  elegimus  Leusdeni  posteriorem, 
(1667.)  Verum  ipsam  non  ita  presso  pede  sequuti  sumus,  ne  passim  ab  eo 
non  nihil  discedendum  esse  putaremus,  Proprio  itaque  studio  Bibliorura 
recensionem  aggressuri,  ex  editionibus  impressis  eas,  quse  reliquarum  quasi 
cardinales  videbantur,  selegimus,  Bombergianam  Venet,  Regiam,  Basileens. 
Buxtorfii  et  Hutterian.,  qnibuscum  edit.  Menassis  et  al.  passim  contulimus. 
Prffiterea  usi  sumus  MS.  Biblioth.  Elect,  cod.,  item  e  Bibliotli.  Dessav.  His 
plures  al.  codd.  conjunximus Ed.  2 ;  Ber.  1772,  12mo. 

2.  From  this  have  followed.  Bib.  Heb.  J.  H.  MichaeXis;  Hal.  Mag.  1720, 
8vo.  [Five  MSS.,  and  all  the  best  editions,  says  the  preface,  were  collated 
for  tliis ;  but  the  work  was  done  imperfectly.  See  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  i. 
Kennicott,  Diss.  pp.  86,  146.]  Athias's  edition  of  1667  is  accurately  re- 
printed in  Bib.  Heb.  Ever,  van  der  Hooght ;  Amst.  et  Ultraj.  1705,  8vo. 

3.  From  this  have  proceeded.  Bib.  Heb.  Sal  Ben  Jos.  Props;  Amst. 
1724,  8vo.  Bib.  Heb.  Lat.  cum  Vers.  Seb.  Schmidtii  ;  Lips.  1740,  4to.  Bib. 
Heb.  Lat.  C.  F.  Houbigant ;  Par.  1753,  4  vols.  fol.  Bib.  Heb.  Jo.  Simonis  ; 
Hal.  1752,  1767,  8vo.  Bib.  Heb.  Be7ij.  Kennicott ;  Oxon.  1776—1780,  fol. 
Compare  Brims,  De  Mendis  typographicis  Edit.  Van  der  Hooght,  a  Kenni- 
cotto  non  sublatis,  in  Eichhorn,  Report,  vol.  xii.  p.  225,  sqq. 

4.  Athias  is  followed,  also,  in  Bib.  Heb.  cum  optimis  impress,  et  MSS. 

Codd.  collata Stud,  et  Op.  Hur.  Opitii,  (Kil.  1709,  4to. ;)  and  from  this 

comes  Bib.  Heb.,(ZiilUch,  1741,  4to.) 

On  this  and  the  following  section,  see  Le  Long,  Masch,  pt.  i.  Wolf,  Bib. 
Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  364,  sqq.  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  436,  sqq.  Rosenmiiller,  1.  c. 
vol.  i.  p.  189,  sqq.,  vol.  iii.  p.  279,  sqq.,  and  the  Introductions  to  tl'e  O.  T. 


^96.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  371 

recommended  an  accurate  examination  of  sncli  manu- 
scripts as  were  then  known,  and  a  search  after  others. 
Yet  he  published  the  Hebrew  text  with  but  slight  devia- 
tions from  the  masoretic  text,  as  it  had  been  printed  in 
Leusden's  edition  of  1667.  He  omitted  the  two  sus- 
picious verses  in  Joshua,  which  have  since  been  so 
abundantly  confirmed.]" 


§  96. 

CRITICAL  APPARATUS. 

The  greater  Masora  and  the  various  readings  are 
contained  in  the  Rabbinical  Bibles  of  Buxtorf  and 
Bomberg ;  the  various  readings  may  be  found  in  the 
editions  of  Sebastian  Miinster,  Van  der  Hooght,  and  J. 
H.  Michaelis,*  in  that  published  at  Mantua,  (1742 — 
1744,)  with    Norzi's   critical  commentary,''  and   in   the 

"  [See  Kennicott,  1.  c.  §  123.     Eichhorn,  §  40].] 

*  See  J.  D.  Michaelis^s  Remarks  on  the  Halle  Bible  of  J.  H.  Michaelis, 
and  the  remarkable  readings  of  the  Erfurt  MSS.,  which  it  omits,  in  his  Or. 
Bib.  vol.  i.  p.  207,  sqq.  [Rosenmidler,  1.  c.  p.  500,  sums  up  the  merits  and 
deficiencies  of  Houbigant,  by  saying  he  agrees  with  Cappellus,  and  often 
with  Morinus,  but  has  not  the  acuteness  of  the  ono,  nor  the  broad  learning 
•of  the  other.  His  representations  of  the  deficiencies  and  fiiults  of  the 
present  Hebrew  text,  are  far  more  exaggerated  than  those  of  Cappellus 
Like  a  medical  quack  who  magnifies  the  disease  of  his  patient  as  much  as 
possible,  to  make  his  own  merit  proportionably  great,  Houbigant  strives  to 
make  the  corruption  of  the  text  appear  very  bad,  so  that  the  remedy  he 
has  proposed  and  recommended  so  strongly,  may  be  taken  the  more 
greedily.] 

"  O.  G.  Tychsen,  Tentamen,  p.  70,  sq.  De  Rossi,  Prolegg.  ad  Varr.  Lect 
§  37,  sqq.  The  printed  title  of  JVbrzt's  work  is  i':3  nn::a  ,  [[the  Offering  of  a 
Present ;)  but  its  true  title  is  yiC  ^Tia ,  [the  Restorer  of  the  Ruins.)  See 
more  concerning  this  valuable  edition,  which  is  too  little  known,  in  Ke7i- 
nicott,  Diss,  Gen.  §  62,  and  Rosenmuller,  1.  c] 


372  HISTORY    OF    Tin:    TCXT.  [§  ^^• 

Bibles  of  Houbigant,"  Kennicott,''  Dtiderlein,  Meisncr, 
and  Jahn/  [The  Polyglots,  and  also  the  Biglots,  must 
be  named  under  this  head.]  "* 

Rabbi  Meir  Hallevi/  Rabbi  Menachem  de  Lonzano/ 


"  HouMgant,  Notge  Criticfs  in  V.  T.  Libros,  cum  Heb.  turn  Grace  scrip- 
tos,  cum  integris  ejusdem  Prolegg.  ad  Exemplar  Paris,  denuo  recusse,  vol.  i., 
ii. ;  Franeq.  1777,  4to.  See  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Pref.  to  his  Krit.  Collegio  iiber 
die  drei  wichtigsten  Psalmen  von  Christo.  /.  Chr.  Kallii  Prod.  Examinis 
Criseos  Houbigantianse  ;  Hafn.  1763,  4to.  His  Exam.  Cris.  Houbigantiana3 
in  Cod.  Heb.  Spec.  i. ;  ibid.  1764.  Sth.  Ran,  Exercit.  ad  Houbigantii  Prol. ; 
Lug.  Bat.  1785,  4to. 

''  B7-uns,  De  var.  Lect.  Bib.  Kennicot.  in  Eichhorn's  Repert.  vol.  xii.  p. 
242,  sqq.,  xiii.  p.  31,  sqq.  See  his  Apology  for  Kennicott,  id.  vol.  vi.  p. 
173,  sqq.  For  the  history  and  criticism  of  the  work,  see  Rosenmiiller,  Hand- 
buch,  vol.  i.  p.  241,  sqq.  [The  laborious  work  of  Kennicott  proves  that  the 
Hebrew  MSS.  are  all  modern ;  only  three  so  old  as  the  eleventh  century,  and 
none  older;  that  they  all  exhibit  one  recension,  and  have  issued  from  one 
source,  and  consequently  are  of  little  use  to  rectify  a  corrupt  passage.  He 
is  too  much  inclined  to  prefer  readings  of  the  present  MSS.,  which  agree 
with  the  old  versions,  to  the  received  text,  when  they  give  an  easier  or  moro 
harmonious  sense.  Better  critical  principles  and  more  practice  in  the  criti- 
cism of  other  ancient  writings,  Avould,  doubtless,  have  secured  him  from  those 
errors.  Eichhorn  (in  No.  100  of  the  Jena  Zeitung,  afterwards  published  in 
Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xii..  Append.)  showed  many  mistakes  of  Kennicott'ti 
assistants.  Rosenmiiller,  1.  c.  p.  504.  It  is  wonderful  tliat  a  man  so  familiar 
with  Hebrew  MSS.  should  not  have  given  the  world  a  better  classification,  or 
some  theory  of  the  MSS. ;  at  least,  some  hints  at  a  Hebrew  palaeography. 
Bruns  thinks  his  English  assistants  were  incompetent  to  the  task  they 
undertook,  and  that  Kennicott  himself  erred  in  rejecting  the  marginal  read- 
inirs,  and  in  refusing  to  collate  some  ancient  MSS.  because  they  foUoweil 
the  Masora  too  closely.] 

"  Bib.  Heb.  Reineccii  ed.  J.  Chr.  Doderlein  et  J.  H.  Meisner ;  Lips.  I7i*3, 
8vo.     Bib.  Heb.  dig.  et  grav.  Lectt.  Var.  adj.  J.  Jahn ;  Vien.  1807, 3  vols.  4to. 

<*  [There  is  a  valuable  Polyglot  of  the  Pent,  in  Heb.,  Chald.,  Pers.,  and 
Arab, ;  Constantinople,  1546 ;  another  on  the  Ps.  in  Heb.,  Gr.,  Arab.,  and 
Chald.,  with  the  glosses  and  Lat.  versions,  by  Jusiiniani ;  Gen.  1516 ;  a 
third  on  the  Ps.  by  Potken,  in  four  languages ;  Col.  1518.] 

'  The  titles  are,  n^iinb  aT^D  rTTlC?3  1£G ,  (i.  e.  the  Book,  the  Masora,  the 
Hedge  of  the  Law ;)  Flor.  1750,  fol. ;  Bcrl.  1761.  See  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen. 
§  57,  and  Brims,  p.  112.  See  his  Excerpts,  in  Neue  Theol.  Journal,  vol.  vi. 
p.  765,  sqq.     De  Rossi,  1.  c.  §36. 

/  niin  ^.1«,  {Light  of  the  Law:)  first  published  at  Venice,   1518,   in 


^  97.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  313 

and  J.  B.  de  Rossi,  have  published  collations  of  various 
readings." 

§97. 

RESULTS   OF  THE   HISTORY  OF  THE   TEXT. 

All  the  diligence  hitherto  applied  to  the  comparison 
of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  has  taught  us  that  thej  all, 
throughout,  represent  the  same  recension  of  the  text, 
namely,  the  masoretic,  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  them 
all.  [Kennicott  and  De  Rossi  compared  one  thousand 
three  hundred  and  forty-six  Jewish  and  Samaritan  man- 
uscripts, and  three  hundred  and  fifty-two  editions ;  that 
is,  sixteen  hundred  and  ninety-eight  copies,  including 
both  manuscripts  and  editions,  not  to  mention  the  ex- 
tracts from  others,  found  in  the  margin  of  these.  To 
these  De  Rossi  added  extracts  from  old  versions,  from 
the  Fathers,  the  Rabbins,  and  uncounted  writers,  Jewish 
and  Christian.  From  the  use  of  all  these  materials, 
and  the  toil  of  six-and-thirty  years,  conducted  with  a 
zeal  which  bordered  on  fanaticism,  we  have  learned  only 
this,  —  that  the  Masorites  afford  little  aid  in  restoring 
the  passages  where  the  text  is  corrupt ;  that  the  Jewish 
transcribers  copied  with  most  patient  assiduity,  and 
superstitious  correctness  ;    that  Chance   or  Superstition 

n~"'    "^nr  ;  separately,  but  incorrectly ;  Amst.  1558.     See  Simon,  Hist  crit. 
du  V.  T.  p.  542.     Kennicott,  1.  c.  §  61.     De  Rossi,  §  37. 

"  Variae  lectiones  Vet.  Test,  ex  immensa  MSS.  editorumque  codd.  con- 
gerie  liaustae  et  ad  Samarit.  textum,  ad  vetiistissimas  verss.,  ad  accuratiores 
sacras  critics  fontes  ac  leges  examinatse ;  Parm.  1784 — 1788,  4  vols.  4to. 
Scholia  crit.  in  V.  T.  libros,  sive  supplementa  ad  varias  sac.  textus  lectt. ; 
ib.  1798,  4to.  See  Doderlein,  Auserles.  theol.  Biblioth.  vol.  iv.  p.  1,  sqq.  [De 
Rossi  collated  three  hundred  editions  ;  seven  hundred  and  thirty-one  MSS., 
besides  the  variants  of  Kennicott;  the  ancient  versions  and  rabbinical 
writings.  However,  he  did  not  collate  them  all  throughout,  but  only  in 
places  where  others  had  found  a  difficulty.] 


374  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  97. 

has  destroyed  all  the  old  manuscripts ;  that  the  first 
critical  editions  were  not  always  successful  in  their 
selection  of  readings,  and  that  some  few  passages, 
therefore,  may  still  be  corrected  from  the  present  manu- 
scripts. We  see  that  our  present  uniformity  of  punc- 
tuation is  supported  by  very  few  manuscripts ;  that 
there  are  numerous  diversities  of  punctuation  which 
affect  the  sense.  But,  alas  !  we  learn  that  all  aid  from 
manuscripts  relates  only  to  trifles;  they  give  us  but 
little  help  in  the  most  important  defects,  and  we  must 
close  the  list  of  those  places,  lamenting  that  there  is  no 
certain  help  for  them.  "  What  Time  has  swallowed  we 
cannot  recover."  Jahn,  however,  thinks  that  much 
may  yet  be  done  in  this  department.] " 

The  same  recension  was  in  the  hands  of  the  old 
translators,  from  whose  works  we  can  clearly  discern 
the  text  they  had  before  them.*  Since  their  time,  it  has 
not  been  materially  changed ;  and  from  the  earnest 
carefulness  of  the  Jews,  we  may  conclude,  with  proba- 
bility, that  it  was  the  same  before  their  time.''  From 
the  characteristic  peculiarities  of  the  different  writers  in 
the  Bible,  which  are  carefully  preserved,  and  from  those 
of  the  independent  passages  out  of  which  some  books 
are  composed,  it  appears  that,  in  general,  this  recension 
faithfully  represents  the  text  of  the  books  Avhich  were 
collected  together  after  the  exile,  and  united  into  the 
canon.'' 

"  [EichJwrn,  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  ii.  p.  562,  sqq.] 

*  Above,  §  88. 

'  Above,  §  88.     Eichhorn,  Prsef.  ad  Kocher,  Nov.  Bibliotheca  Heb. 

"^  Eichhorn,  1.  c,  shows  this  very  plainly  in  respect  to  the  different  names 
of  God  in  Genesis  and  Job,  and  in  respect  to  the  different  orthography  of 
the  various  writers.  Even  the  differences  between  parallel  passages  go  to 
prove  the  accuracy  of  the  text.     See  above,  '§85. 


^  98.]  HISTORY    OF    THE    TEXT.  375 

%98. 

VARIOUS   CRITICAL   SYSTEMS. 

The  critical  school  of  the  old  Protestants  were  right, 
to  a  certain  extent,  when  they  maintained  the  integrity 
of  the  text  as  it  existed  in  the  masoretic  manuscripts." 
But  this  school  went  too  far  when  they  extended  the 
faultlessness  of  the  text  to  the  vowel  points.* 

On  the  other  hand,  the  moderns  obviously  exaggerate 
both  the  faults  of  the  present  text  and  the  means    of 

"  Loscher,  De  Caus.  Ling.  Heb.  p.  442:  Non  in  ea  versamiir  opinione, 
qiiam  inspectio  codicum  palam  refellit,  ita  custoditnm  esse  quemvis  Ebrajo- 
rum  codicem,  ut  temeritas  critica  vel  hallucinatio  scribarum  nihil  hinc  inde 
niutare  potuerit,  sed  ita  arbitramur:  etsi  particulares  codd.,  hie  qnidem  in 
ista,  ille  in  alia  parte,  alterationes  leviusculas  passi  sint,  nullam  tamen  mu- 
tationem  in  omnes  codd.  simul  sumtos,  h.  e.,  in  fontes  abstracte,  ut  Philoso- 
phi  loquuntur,  consideratos  irrupisse :  idque  divinas  providentise  prsesidio 
cumprimis,  deinceps  aliqua  Judaicaa  gentis  industria  factum. 

Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  93 :  Si  in  communi  lectione  omnes  codd.  conspirant, 
ea  quoque  standum  est,  nee  vel  in  vers,  cujusdam,  vel  in  commodioris  inter- 
pretationis  gratiam,  multo  minus  ob  diversam  allegationem,  sive  biblicam, 
sive  ecclesiasticam,  tentanda  mutatio. 

Buxtorf,  De  Punctorum  Antiquit.  et  Orig.  vol.  i.  p.  282 :  Si  omnes  varie- 
tates  codd.  Hebraicorum,  quas  in  suis  codd.  critici  illorun^  annotarunt,  qua 
veteres,  qua  recentes,  in  unum  manipulum  aut  fasciculum  coUigantur,  de- 
prehendentur  esse  levissimi,  et  plane  quoad  sensum  nullius  momenti,  ita  ut 
plerumque  nihil  aut  certe  parum  intersit,  hane  an  illam  sequaris  lectionem. 
Idem,  AnticriL  i.  4,  p.  66,  sqq. :  Non  est  certum,  si  interpres  aliter  transferat, 
quam  hodiernus  cod.  Hebr.  refert,  quod  talem  lectionem  in  suo  exemplari 
Hebr.  invenerit.  Primum  enim  sensum  SEcpe  reddiderunt,  non  ad  verba  at- 
tendentes:  secundo  deprehenditur,  illos  nimiam  licentiam  aliquando  sibi 
sumsisse:  tertio  non  eximendi  sunt  interpretes  ab  imperitia:  quarto  ad 
imperitiam  accessit  etiam  ssepe  negligentia  et  oscitantia:  quinto  etiam 
qufedam  sunt  verss.,  de  quibus  constat,  illas  non  amplius  esse  tales,  quales  a 
primis  illarum  authoribus  fuerunt  conditse.  See  Bvxtorf,  On  the  Cod.  Sam. 
1.  c.  ii.  7,  p.  524. 

^  Here  belong  the  following  works :  Sal.  Glass,  Tract,  de  Textus  Hebr. 
in  V.  T.  Puritate,  in  Bauer,  Crit  sac.  p.  22,  sqq.  Abr.  CaJov,  Critici  sac. 
Tract,  ii.  p.  396,  sqq.     Hottinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  118,  sqq.    J.  Leusden,  Phi- 


376  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  99. 

correcting  these   faults,  such    as    the    ancient  versions, 
the  Samaritan  codex,  and  critical  conjecture." 

Yet  the  contest  between  these  different  parties  has 
served  to  give  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  the  neces- 
sary freedom  and  circumspection,  with  which,  by  using 
all  the  means  at  its  command,  it  might  seek  to  discover 
faults  and  correct  them,  though  for  more  ancient  errors, 
which  lie  deeper,  it  knows  of  no  help. 


DIVISION    II. 

THEORY  OF  THE  CRITICISM  OF  THE 
HEBREW  TEXT. 

%99. 

OBJECT  OF  THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

It  appears  from  the  history  of  the  outward  form  of 
the  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  consonants 
alone  are  the  proper  object  of  criticism  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, without    any  reference    to   their   division   into 

lol.  Ebr.  Dissert,  xxiii.  ^nt.  Hulsius,  Authentia  absol.  sac.  Textus  Hebr. 
vindicata,  c.  8,  sqq.  Am.  Bootii  Vindicise  sive  Apodixis  Apolog.  pro  Hebr. 
Veritate  cont.  J.  Morinum  et  L.  Cappellum ;  Par.  1653,  4to.  Matt.  Wasmutli, 
Vindicise  sac.  Script. ;  Rost.  1664,  4to. 

"  Is.  Vossius,  De  LXX.  Int.,  and  Append,  ad  Lib.  de  LXX.  Morimis, 
Exercitatt.  Bibl.  de  Hebr.  Greecique  textus  sinceritate  duo,  quorum  prior  in 
Grsecos  sac.  textus  codd.  inquirit,  vulg.  ecclesise  versionem  antiquissimis  codd. 
conformem  esse  docet,  germanse  LXX.  interpretnm  edit  dignoscendse  et 
illius  cum  vulgata  conciliandsB  methodum  tradit  ejusdemque  divinam  integ- 
ritatem  ex  Judaeorum  traditionibus  confirmat  Posterior  explicat,  quidquid 
Judeei  in  Hebr.  textus  criticen  hactenus  elaborarunt,  etc.;  Par.  1669,  fol. 


^  100.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  377 

words.  The  separation  into  words,  the  punctuation, 
and  accentuation,  belong  to  the  department  of  exegesis 
and  philology.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  traditionary 
division,  punctuation,  and  accentuation,  which  the  Jews 
observed  in  their  treatment  of  the  text,  have  great 
authority,  and  consequently  the  critical  marks  arc  to  be 
consulted  in  this  matter.  * 

An  exegetical  and  philplogical  use  may  be  made 
of   the   various   readings. 

§  100.  ^ 

GENERAL  THEORY   OF  THE   OFFICE  OF  CRITICISM. 

The  design  of  criticism  is  to  determine  what  was 
originally  written  by  the  author,  consequently  to  ascer- 
tain facts. 

Now,  facts  may  be  ascertained  directly,  by  inspection. 
But  in  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  this  direct 
source  of  information  fails  us  ;  for  the  original  documents 
that  came  from  the  author's  hand  are  the  only  proper 
object  of  inspection,  and  these  are  lost. 

Then,  again,  facts  may  be  ascertained  indirectly, 
through  the  probable  statements  of»  history,  which  de- 
rives  its   materials   from   inspection ;    that   is,   through 


I/ud.  Cappellus,  Critica  sac.  de  variis  quae  in  Vet  Test.  Libris,  occurrunt 
Lectt.  lib,  vi.  ed.  Stud,  et  Op.  /.  Cappelli,  fil. ;  Par.  1650,  fol.,  rec.  multisque 
Animadvv.  auxit  G.  J.  L.  Vogel,  torn.  i. ;  Hal,  1775.  Animadv.  auxit  /.  G. 
Scharfenberg ;  torn.  ii.  1778,  torn.  iii.  1786,  8 vo.  The  following  are  much 
more  moderate :  R.  Simon,  Hist.  crit.  du  V,  T,  vol,  i.  p.  16,  sqq,  Waltoti, 
Proleg.  vii.  viii,  Kennicott,  Diss,  i,  ii.  super  Ratione  Textus  Hebr.  V.  T. 
Lat  vert,  Guil.  Abr.  Teller ;  Lips.  1756,  1765,  8vo.  Diss.  Gen,  ed.  Bruns; 
Brunsv.  1783,  8vo.  De  Rossi,  Prolegg.  ad  varr.  Lectt  HouMgant  ex- 
aggerates the  matter  again  in  his  Prolegg.  in  Scripturam  sac,  (Par.  174(), 
4to.,)  and  Rau,  I.e.,  refutes  his  charges. 

VOL.  I.  48 


378  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  101. 

history  which  must  rest  on  documentary  evidence. 
This  evidence,  in  the  criticism  of  any  particular  text, 
consists  in  the  documentary  proofs  of  its  various  con- 
ditions at  different  times,  —  such  as  the  recensions  and 
various  readings,  —  which  the  critic  is  to  inquire  into 
and  decide  upon. 

Two  things,  then,  belong  to  criticism,  namely :  — 

1.  To  have  an  acquaintance   with   the  documentary 
7neans  of  ascertaining  the  original  text;  and, 

2.  T'o  pass  judgment  upon  the  testimony  they  offer. 
When    there    is    no    such   testimony    respecting    the 

critical  questions,  or  when  the  testimony  is  obviously 
insufficient,  a  third  office  is  imposed  upon  the  critic, 
^lamely,  critical  conjecture." 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  DOCUMENTARY   MEANS  TO  AID  IN  THE 
CRITICISM  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

§101. 

GENERAL   VIEW   AND   DIVISION   OF  THE   SUBJECT. 

Pursuing  the  course  of  history,  we  can  distinguish 
the  following  various  forms  of  the  text  of  the  Old 
Testament,  namely  :  — 


"  [I  have  given  a  paraphrase,  more  than  a  translation,  of  this  section. 
But  I  trust  the  author's  meaning  is  made  as  clear  in  the  English,  at  least,  as 
It  is  in  the  German.] 

See  Pauhis,  Com.  iiber  N.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  27,  sqq. 


^101.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  379 

I.  The  text  before  the  canon  was  collected  and 
closed. 

II.  The  text  before  the  time  of  the  Masoiites. 

III.  The  Samaritan-Alexandrian  text  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. 

IV.  The  masoretic  text. 

The  witnesses  or  documentary  means  of  proving  the 
text  may  be  arranged  in  the  same  order ;  but  since  the 
documents  which  relate  to  the  first  and  second  of 
the  above  divisions  are  so  scanty  and  uncertain,  this 
arrangement  of  them  serves  scarce  any  other  purpose 
than  to  give  a  convenient  view  of  the  subject. 

[The  following  are  the  means  of  proof  to  be  relied 
on,  namely :  — 

I.  The  parallel  passages  in  the  Bible  ;  the  Alphabetic 
Psalms ;  for  the  books  of  Moses,  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch. These  disclose  the  variations  and  faults  of  the 
text  in  the  earliest  times. 

II.  The  old  versions  of  the  Bible ;  perhaps  the 
Jewish  writers  Philo  and  Josephus ;  the  Christian 
Fathers,  Ephraim  the  Syrian,  Origen,  and  Jerome  ;  the 
Talmud  and  the  Masora.  These  sources  disclose  the 
later  variations,  before  the  masoretic  recension  was 
completed. 

III.  The  modern  rabbins ;  manuscripts  and  editions. 
These  contain  the  various  readings  of  the  masoretic  re- 
cension. 

When  these  means  are  not  adequate  to  restore  a  cor- 
rupt passage,  here,  as  in  all  other  ancient  writings,  the 
only  resort  is  to  critical  conjecture,  which  is  at  all  times 
uncertain.]" 

"  Bawr,  Crit.  sac.  §  35,  sqq,    Einleit  §  97.     Eichhom,  §  139. 


380  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.        [§  102,   103. 


%102. 

1.  MEANS  OF  ASCERTAINING  THE  TEXT  BEFORE   CLOSING 
THE   CANON. 

These  are  found  only  in  the  parallel  passages,"  and 
the  use  even  of  them  is  much  limited  by  the  fact  that 
later  writers  intended  to  recast  and  work  over  the  earlier 
passages  they  inserted,  rather  than  to  preserve  them  in 
their  original  form.  Besides,  the  alterations  which 
these  later  writers  allowed  themselves  to  make,  and  the 
faults  they  themselves  fell  into,  belong  to  the  peculiar 
text  of  these  writers,  and  so  are  not  to  be  used  by  the 
critic.'' 

^103. 

II.   MEANS   OF  ASCERTAINING  THE  TEXT  BEFORE  THE  TIME 
OF  THE   MASORITES. 

1.    The  Versions. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  from  a  direct,  accurate,  just, 
and  unfalsified  version,  we  can  ascertain  the  original 
text,  which  was  its  basis,  at  least  in  its  main  features. 
But  the  translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially 
the  more  ancient  of  them,  sometimes  had  not  sufficient 
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language  ;  sometimes  they 
had  not  the  requisite  helps ;  and,  in  particular,  they  had 
no  text  furnished  with  the  vowel  points  ;  besides,  their 
works  are,  for  the  greater  part,  extensively  interpolated  ; 

"  Above,  §  85. 

''  Cappellus,  ed.  Vogel,  lib.  i.  ch.  3—14.  Baver,  Crit.  sac.  §,132,  (§  20.)  /. 
H.  Oiven,  Crit.  sac,  [or  A  Short  Introduction  to  Hebrew  Criticism,  originally 
published  without  the  author's  name,  in  1774,]  in  the  German  collection 
Brit.  Theol.  vol.  i.  p.  77.     [See  Appendix,  H.,  and  Eichhorn,  §  139.] 


§103,]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  381 

SO  that,  for  all  these  reasons,  the  critical  use  of  them  is 
exceedingly  insecure,  and  is  attended  with  the  danger 
of  mistaliing  exegetical  errors  and  interpolations  of  the 
translator  for  the  true  readings  of  the  text  he  had  before 
him." 

The  chief  rule  to  be  given  in  this  case  is,  to  avoid 
this  danger  by  getting  an  accurate  acquaintance  with 
the  spirit  and  the  critical  condition  of  the  versions  to  be 
used,  and  by  a  circumspect  attention  to  all  possible 
methods  of  reconciling  them  with  the  present  text,  and 
by  supposing  the  translators  made  mistakes  and  con- 
jectures. 

[The  ancient  versions  are  very  valuable,  since 
they  follow  the  ante-masoretic  text,  and  are,  indeed, 
often  its  only  representatives.  But  it  is  not  always 
possible  from  the  version  to  determine  what  its  author 
read  in  his  manuscripts ;  for  sometimes  his  word  may 
be  translated  back  into  Hebrew  by  one  of  several 
synonymes ;  he  may  have  added  words  of  little  im- 
portance, or  even  important  words,  for  the  sake  of 
greater  clearness.  Sometimes  he  altered  to  suit  the 
idiom  of  his  own  tongue,  or  to  be  more  perspicuous  ; 
sometimes  he  did  not  understand  an  obscure  or  difficult 
word,  or  sentence,  and  omitted  it,  or  gave  a  conjectural 
translation,  and  sometimes  expressed  the  sense  witliout 
rendering  the  words.  But  where  we  can  ascertain  the 
reading,  the  version  is  of  the  same  value  as  the  original 
text.]* 

"  Bxixforf,  Anticrit  p.  66,  sqq.  See  above,  §  98,  p.  375,  note  a.  Hensler, 
Bemerkungen  iiber  Jereniias,  p.  26.     Winer,  De  Onkeloso,  p.  23. 

*  Bauer,  Crit  sac.  p.  426,  sqq.  Jahn,  vol.  L  p.  438,  sqq.  [/.  C.  Knapp, 
Diss.  ii.  de  Vers.  Alex,  in  emendanda  Lectione  Exempli  Hebraici,  caute 
adhibenda;  Hal.  1775,  1776.] 


382  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  104. 

^104. 
Utility  of  the  Different  Versions. 

1 .  If  the  entire  work  of  Aquila  were  still  extant,  the 
first  rank  would  be  assigned  to  it,  on  account  of  his 
literal  fidelity." 

2.  The  Alexandrian  version  claims  superiority  in 
respect  of  age,  but  its  value  is  diminished  by  the  un- 
certain condition  of  its  text;  by  the  unskilfulness  of 
its  authors,  and  their  inaccurate  notions  respecting 
the  grammatical  construction  and  interpretation  of 
the  original.* 

3.  The  writers  of  the  Targums  were  certainly  best 
able  to  understand  the  original  text;  but  the  freedom 
with  which  they  have  treated  it,  in  general,  renders  the 
critical  use  of  their  words  difficult.  The  corruption 
of  the  Targums  from  the  Hebrew  text  adds  to  the 
difficulty.' 

4.  The  Syriac  version  sometimes  inclines  to  the  Al- 


"  Bathe,  De  Aquiloe  Reliquiis  in  Hosse,  in  his  Opusc.  ed.  Rosenmuller ; 
Lips,  1746,  8vo.  Cappellus,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  805,  and  Scharfenberg's  remarks 
therein. 

*  Grabe,  Diss,  de  LXX.  Intt.  ch.  i.  Carpzov,  Crit  sac.  p.  516,  sqq.  Ge- 
senius,  Gesch.  d.  Hebr.  Spr.  p.  77,  sqq.  Cappellus,  vol.  ii.  p.  512,  sqq.  Be 
Rossi,  Prolegg.  §  28.  Knapp,  Diss.  ii.  de  Vers.  Alex,  in  emendanda  Lec- 
tione  Exempli  Hebr.  caute  adhibenda  ;  Hal.  1775, 1776.  Reinhard,  De  Vers. 
Alex.  Auctoritate  et  Usu  in  constituenda  Librorum  Hebr.  Lectione  genuina, 
Opusc.  acad.  ed.  Politz,  vol.  i.  p.  25,  sqq.,  43,  sqq.  See  other  authors  in 
Rostnmidkr,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  445,  sqq. 

'  Eichhorn,  §  217.  Winer,  1.  c.  p.  25,  who  limits  the  corruption  from  this 
source  very  much.  See  examples  of  the  variants  of  the  Targums  in  Eich- 
horn, §224,  229,  sqq.,  and  Cappellus,  vol.  ii.  p.  779,  sqq.  Pfannkuche,  De 
Codd.  MSS.  V.  T.  et  Vers.  Chald.  in  Lectt.  Antimasoreticis  Consensu;  Giss. 
1803,  4to. 


§  105.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  383 

exandrian ;  but  where  it  is  independent,  it  is  valuable 
on  account  of  its  fidelity  to  the  original." 

5.  Jerome's  version  is  a  very  important  witness, 
when  it  is  freed  from  its  mixture  with  the  other  Latin 
translations.* 

6.  Saadias,  and  other  more  modern  translators,  belong 
rather  to  the  masoretic  text,  though  they  often  differ 
considerably  from  that." 

§  105. 

2.    Quotations  from  the  Bible  by  the  Talmud  and 
Rabbins. 

When  the  Talmudists  do  not  sport  with  passages  of 
Scripture,'^  nor  bring  them  forward  frivolously  and  from 
memory,    but   quote    accurately   and   with   care,"  their 


"  Eichhorn,  §  253.  Bauer,  CriL  sac.  §  134.  MicJiaelis,  Abhandlung  liber 
d.  Syr.  Sprache,  §  13.  Bathe,  Remarks  in  his  edition  of  the  Syriac  Psalter. 
Hirzel,  De  Pent  Vers.  Syr.  §  2. 

'  Cappellus,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  858,  sqq.  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  §  84,  13,  14. 
EichJiorn,  §  127,  b. 

"  [Kennicott,  1.  c.  §  43.] 

On  the  critical  use  of  Josephus,  see  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  v.  p.  221,  sqq. 
[Kennicott,  1.  c.  §  30,  sq.    Eichhorn,  §  339.] 

'^  Here  belongs  the  formula  "p  »is*  "^3  S*"ipri  ^5^,  [i.  e.  read  not  so,  but 
so.  But  this  formula  is  mostly  used  when  a  passage  is  allegorized,  tliough 
sometimes  it  is  followed  by  a  proper  variant.]  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  ch.  ix.  p. 
83,  sqq. 

^  [Numerous  variants  might  reasonably  be  expected  from  the  Talmud, 
for  it  is  older  than  the  Masora ;  but  the  quotations  in  the  printed  editions  of 
the  Talmud  have  been  altered  by  the  editors  to  conform  to  the  common 
text  Doctor  Gill,  who  collated  the  Talmud  for  Kennicott,  found  less  than 
a  thousand  variants,  and  those  relating  mainly  to  trifles.  Kennicott,  Diss. 
Gen.  §  35.  Manuscripts  of  the  Talmud,  as  well  as  printed  editions,  must  be 
used,  to  find  various  readings.]  Eichhorn,  §  340.  See  further  proofs  of  the 
uncritical  diligence  of  the  editors  of  the  Talmud  in  Simon,  1.  c.  liv.  i.  ch. 


384  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^   106. 

citations  are  to  be  regarded  as  critical  depositions, 
and  of  the  same  value  with  fragments  from  ancient 
manuscripts." 

It  is  only  the  most  ancient  rabbins,  who  lived  nearest 
to  the  time  of  the  Talmud,  that  are  of  any  critical  value 
in  this  respect;  such  are  Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Jarchi, 
and  Maimonides.* 

^  106. 

3.    The  Masora. 

It  is  well  established  that  the  Masora,  in  part,  grew 
out  of  materials  handed  down  by  tradition,  and  out  of 
critical  observations ;  thus  it  contains,  not  only  in  the 
Keris  and  Kethibs,  but  also  in  the  other  annotations, 
statements  respecting  the  text  which  frequently  differ 
from  the  present  readings,  and  are  confirmed  by  the  old 
witnesses,  such  as  Origen  and  Jerome." 

XX.  p.  116.  [Eichhorn,  §341,  mentions  one  exception  to  this  rule,  and  says 
Kimchi's  Liber  Radicum  (Neap.  1490)  has  been  edited  by  Sam.  Lntiph,  in  a 
more  critical  way,  with  all  its  original  variants.  See  Zunz,  Die  Gottes- 
dienstlichen  Vortrjige  der  Juden ;  Berlin,  1832,  ch.  v.] 

"  Burtorf,  Anticrit  p.  808,  maintains  the  unimportance  of  the  variants 
found  in  the  Talmud,  against  Cappellus,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  900.  Against  Bux- 
torf,  see  Claud.  Cappellanus,  Mare  Rabbinicum  infidum ;  Par.  1667,  12mo., 
and  in  Crenius,  Fascic.  x.  Exercitatt  hist  See  Extracts  from  it  in  Kennkott, 
Diss.  ii.  super  Rat  Text  p.  247—252.  Frommann  gives  various  readings 
from  the  Mishna  in  his  treatise  An  variae  Lect  ad  Cod.  V.  T.  colligi  possint 
ex  Mishna,  Opusc.  vol.  i.  p.  1—46.  Kennicott  published  variants,  also,  from 
the  Mishna  and  Gemara,  in  No.  650,  after  Doctor  Gill's  collation,  (Diss.  Gen. 
§  35,)  in  which  Buxtorf 's  judgment  is  fully  confirmed. 

<>  See  specimens  in  Cappdlus,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  420,  sqq.  Tychsen,  EUtzow. 
Nebenstunden,  and  in  Eichhorn^s  Repert  vol.  i.  p.  169,  sqq. 

'  Eichhorn,  §  157.  Compare  §  113,  127,  b.  Praef.  ad  Koclmri  Nov.  Bib 
Heb.  Cappdlus,  I  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  917,  sqq.  Bvxtarf  concedes  this,  Anticrit 
p.  832. 


^  107.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  385 

§  107. 

III.     MEANS   OF  ASCERTAINING  THE   SAMARITAN   TEXT. 

1.  This  text  is  contained  in  Samaritan  manuscripts, 
the  first  of  which  came  to  Europe  in  1620,  or,  accord- 
ing to  Kennicott,  in  1623."  They  are  of  no  great 
antiquity,  and  are  furnished  with  very  uncertain  sub- 
scriptions.* The  Samaritan  character  is  written  without 
the  Jewish  vowel  points,  accents,  and  diacritical  marks, 
but  with  its  own  peculiar  marks  for  reading  and  punc- 
tuation." 

2.  To  this  recension  belong  the  Samaritan,  and  the 
Samaritan-Arabic  version  of  the  Pentateuch.*^ 

"  Achilles  Harlay  de  Sancy  thinks  this  MS.  was  purchased  at  Damascus, 
in  1616,  (by  Petrus  a  Valle  ?)  and  was  sent  to  the  Library  of  the  Oratory  at 
Paris.  See  Jo.  Morimis,  Opusc.  Sam.  p.  95.  Exercitatt  in  utrumque  Pent. 
Sam.  p.  8.  Le  Long,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  358.  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  475,  Cod. 
363.  The  following  are  worthy  to  be  consulted :  Cod.  Cottonianus,  in  Ken- 
nicott, No.  127;  Cod.  Sanct  Genov.,  Kennicott,  No.  221.  Compare  Lob- 
stein,  Cod.  Sam.  Par.  Sanct.  Genov.;  Frankfort,  1781;  Barherinis  Triglot; 
Kennicott,  No.  504.     Compare  §  64,  above. 

It  has  been  published  from  Cod.  No.  363,  in  the  Paris  Polyglot,  vol.  vi., 
edited  by  Morinus,  with  his  Latin  version ;  in  vol.  i.  of  the  London  Polyglot, 
by  Walton,  improved,  as  it  is  pretended,  after  Usher's  MSS.  See  Walton, 
Prol.xi.  10,  and,  on  the  other  side,  Castellus,  Prsef  ad  Animadversiones  Sam. 
in  vol.  vi.  of  the  Polyglot.  Both  of  these  editions  are  in  the  Samaritan 
character.  It  has  been  published  in  the  Chaldee  square  letter ;  Pentat.  Heb_ 
Sam.  ed.  Benj.  Blayney ;  Oxon.  1790,  8vo.  See  its  variations  from  the 
Hebrew  text  in  HouhiganVs  and  KennicotVs  Bibles. 

'  Monnus,  1.  c.  Bjornstahl,  in  Eichhorn's  Repert.  vol.  iii.  p.  87,  sqq.  De 
Rossi,  Spec.  Varr.  Lectt  p.  150.  Eichhorn,  §  380.  See  Kennicott^s  appre- 
ciation of  the  value  of  the  Sam.  Pent.  State  of  the  Heb.  Text,  vol.  iL  eh.  i. 

'  Signs  of  the  division  into  words,  e.g.  Gen.  i.  1,  D'Tlis^  'K^n  Ti'^USH^a. 
the  diacritical  line  called  marhetono,  e.  g.  Ex.  v.  3,  ^5"'^  ^'2'i'z  ;  signs 
of  division  into  paragraphs,  Kazin,  e.  g.  :•  ir:,  or  —  <  :.  &c.  See  Morinus, 
Exercitatt  p.  89,  sqq.  Walton,  Prol.  xi.  10.  HovMgard,  Prol.  iii.  3.  AdLer, 
Bib.  Krit  Reise,  p.  144,  sqq. 

■i  See  above,  §  63,  67. 

VOL.  I.  49 


4k 


386  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  108,   109. 

§  108. 

IV.    MEANS   OF   ASCERTAINING  THE   MASORETIC  TEXT. 
1.  The  Manuscripts. 

With  some  single  exceptions,  the  Hebrew  manuscripts 
represent  the  text  of  the  masoretic  recension  ;  the  an- 
cient agree  with  it  more  nearly  than  the  modern  manu- 
scripts." They  are  generally  divided  into  sacred  and 
common;  or, 

I.  The  rolls  of  the  synagogue  ; 

II.  Private  manuscripts.  These  are  divided  into  two 
classes:  1.  The  manuscripts  written  in  the  Chaldee 
square  letter;  2.  The  manuscripts  in  the  rabbinical 
character. 

§  109. 

A.     Rolls  of  the  Synagogue. 

The  synagogue  rolls  contain  only  the  text  of  the 
Pentateuch,  —  for  the   Hagiographa  and  the   Prophets 


Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  ed.  Bruns,  p.  116,  sqq.  Praef.  p.  x.  Diss,  super 
Rat.  Text  p.  281,  sqq.  De  Rossi,  Prolegg.  p.  xx.  See  accounts  and  cata- 
logues of  the  MSS.  in  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  293.  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac. 
lib.  i.  ch.  8.  Simo7i,  Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  lib.  L  ch.  21—23.  Houbigant, 
Prol.     Ktnnicott,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  334. 

For  the  variants  of  the  MSS.,  De  Rossi,  Clavis  sac.  Descriptio  collatorum 
MSS.  Tychsen,  De  Variis  Codd.  Heb.  —  Eichkorn,  §  342 — 364,  in  the  main, 
offers  a  model  of  a  treatise  on  the  MSS.,  and  Bamr,  Crit  sac.  §  103, 
follows  him. 

See  the  descriptions  of  particular  MSS.  referred  to  by  Rosenmiiller,  1.  c. 
vol.  ii.  p.  17,  sqq.  On  the  Berlin  MSS.,  see  Jahlonski,  Praef.  ad  Bib.  Heb. ; 
Shvlz,  Kritik  der  Bibelausgaben  vorrede.  Wolf,  1.  c.  p.  304,  sqq, ;  Kennicott, 
1.  c.  No.  150,  G07 — 611 ;  [and  Dissertations,  vol.  ii.  ch.  v.;  Horrie,  pt  i.  ch. 
iiL  eect  i.] 


^  109.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  387 

are  written  in  separate  rolls  by  themselves,  —  and  are 
written,  according  to  minute  and  very  rigorous  rules,  in 
the  square,  Chaldee  writing  characters."  They  are  in 
the  ancient  form  of  rolls,  either  of  leather  or  parchment, 
and  are  written  without  vowels  and  accents,  but  with 
the  extraordinary  points,  and  the  unusual  consonants, 
that  is,  the  lesser  and  greater,  the  suspended  and  in- 
verted letters.  They  are  transcribed  from  an  authentic 
copy,  with  the  most  careful  corrections,  and  with  the 
utmost  precision  of  caliijraphy. 

They  represent  one  and  the  same  text  with  great 
uniformity,  and  afford  the  cntic  but  few  variants,  though 
without  furnishing  him  with  satisfactory  proof  that  they 
represent  the  original  text.  It  can  be  maintained  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  thus  accurately  copied  in  ancient 
times,  though  the  rules  for  copying  it  originated  at  a 
later  period.  These  rolled  manuscripts  are  very  rare 
among  the  Christians,  because,  as  Carpzov  says,  the 
Jews  are  unwilling  to  sell  them,  and  carefully  conceal 
all  old  and  defaced  manuscripts  of  the  synagogue,  lest 
the  holy  word  should  be  defiled.* 

"  Tract.  Sopherim.  Compare  JudEeorum  codicis  sacri  rite  scribendi  leges 
ad  rite  sestimandos  codd.  MSS.  antiques  perutiles  e  libro  talmudico  Q"^"iE3lO 
ln;:D?2  in  Lat  conversas  et  annotationibus  explicates  eruditis  examinandas 
tradit  /.  G.  L.  Adlefr ;  Hamb.  1779,  8vo.  R.  Alphes,  Hilc.  Sepher  Thora. 
Maimonides,  Jad  Chasaca,  pt.  i.  lib.  2.  Hilc,  Sepher  Thora,  tract  iii.  ch. 
7,  sqq.,  Lat.  Vers,  in  J.  H.  van  Bashuysen,  Observatt ;  Frcf.  ]  708,  4to.  Shic- 
kard,  Jus  reg.  Heb.  ch.  2,  p.  89,  sqq.,  ed.  Carpzov. 

[However,  Eichhorn  thinks  the  Law  was  not  separated  from  the  other 
biblical  books,  in  the  synagogue,  at  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  and 
adds,  what  no  one  can  doubt,  that  errors  had  crept  into  the  text  before  it  be- 
gan to  be  transcribed  with  such  care,  and  even  since.  §.346.  Kennicott 
found  some  valuable  readings  in  these  rolls.     Diss.  Gen.  No.  229.] 

°  Carpzov,  Crit  sac.  p.  373,  sqq.  But  see  Tychsen,  Tent.  p.  138,  sqq.,  who 
takes  a  different  view. 


388  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  110. 

§  no. 

B.    Private  Manuscripts  in  the   Chaldee  Square  Letter.     De- 
scription of  them. 

They  are  written  upon  parchment,  common  or  cotton 
paper,"  in  the  folio,  quarto,  octavo,  or  duodecimo  form/ 
They  are  written  in  black  ink ;  the  text  and  the  points, 
however,  are  often  of  different  colors  ;  the  initial  letters  or 
words  are  frequently  written  in  gold,  or  with  ornamental 
colors.'  They  are  divided  into  columns,  and  the  po- 
etical passages,  for  the  greater  part,  into  verses ;  a  sepa- 
ration is  carefully  made  between  the  margin  and  the 
lines  of  the  text,  though  the  number  of  lines  does  not 
always  remain  the  same  throughout  the  manuscript. 
The  initial  letters  are  often  fantastically  adorned  and 
wreathed  about  with  passages  from  the  Masora.'^ 

Sometimes  they  contain  merely  the  Hebrew  text,  but 
most  frequently  some  version  is  added  —  the  Chaldee 
paraphrase,  which  is  most  common,  or  the  Arabic,  or 
other  versions  which  are  rare.  Sometimes  the  version 
is  written  in    separate    columns ;    sometimes  versewise 

°  Cod.  1],  22,  35.  Some  are  written  on  common  paper,  but  they  are 
quite  modern. 

*  Such  a  form  is  mentioned  in  Baba  Bathra,  fol.  13,  col.  2.  Cod.  194 
Kennicott,  and  611  Berlin,  are  in  12mo. 

'  [Kennicolt,  No.  1,  19,  36,  37,  50,  89,  328.  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  iv.  p. 
93,  sqq.] 

^  [The  Jewish  transcriber,  says  Eichhorn,  §  347,  sqq.,  was  usually  careful 
to  preserve  the  space  between  the  lines ;  but  sometimes  errors  in  the  text  are 
corrected  there.  In  a  few  MSS.  there  is  a  Latin  version  between  the  lines 
of  the  text.  Almost  every  MS.,  in  some  places,  is  adorned  with  caricatures 
of  men  and  animals,  which  are  sometimes  mere  sketches,  but  at  others  are 
formed  by  writing  the  Masora,  prayers,  or  other  matters,  in  these  shapes, 
with  small  letters  and  pale  ink.  These  fisrnres  often  relate  to  the  subject 
treated  of  in  the  text.] 


^111.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  389 

between  the  lines  of  the  text,  and,  rarely,  in  the  margin, 
in  letters  of  a  smaller  size. 

The  greater  Masora,  or,  sometimes,  a  rabbinical 
commentary,  occupies  the  upper  and  lower  margin  ; 
prayers,  psalms,  &c.,  are  also  found  there.  The  outer 
margin  is  for  corrections,  scholia,  and  various  readings  ; 
for  the  enumeration  of  the  Haphtara  and  Parascha;  for 
the  commentaries  of  the  rabbins,  &c.  The  inward 
margin  is  devoted  to  the  lesser  Masora. 

The  different  books  are  separated  by  blank  spaces, 
except  the  books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
and  Nehemiah.  The  Parascha  and  Haphtara  are,  for 
the  most  part,  carefully  noted. 

In  reference  to  the  order  of  the  Prophets,  the  German 
manuscripts  follow  the  Talmud,  and  the  Spanish  the 
Masora ;  so  that  Isaiah  stands  before  Jeremiah  and  Eze- 
kiel.  The  former  insert  the  books  of  the  Hagiographa 
in  the  following  order,  namely :  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job, 
Canticles,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiasticus,  Esther, 
Daniel,  Ezra,  Chronicles.  The  Masora  has  a  different 
order,  namely :  Chronicles,  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs, 
Ruth,  Canticles,  Ecclesiasticus,  Lamentations,  Esther, 
Daniel,  Ezra." 

^  in. 

The    Writing   Character  used  in  the  Manuscripts. 

With  a  few  unimportant  exceptions,  the  Chaldee 
square  letter  is  used  in  all  the  manuscripts.  But  there 
is  no  original  diplomatic  character  by  which  their  an- 
tiquity can  be  ascertained.* 

"  Eichhom,  §  347—349,  358—362. 

*  On  the  Mphabd.  Jesnitarum,  in  Montfmicon,  ad  Hexap.  Origenis,  vol.  i. 


390  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^111. 

The  Jews  themselves  allow  of  a  distinction  in  the 
character  used  in  their  manuscripts.     There  is, 

I.  The  Tam  character,"  written  with  sharp  corners, 
and  perpendicular  coronamenta,  which  is  common  among 
the  German  and  Polish  Jews ;  and, 

II.  The  Welsh  character,*  more  modern  than  the 
other,  without  rounded  corners  and  coronamenia,  which 
is  chiefly  used  by  the  Spanish  and  Oriental  Jews. 

Modern  critics  enumerate  three  kinds  of  writing 
characters,  namely :  — 

I.  The  Spanish,  in  which  the  letters  are  regular, 
four-cornered,  and  strongly  delineated. 

II.  The  German,  in  which  the  letters  are  less  erect, 
smaller,  and  more  crowded  together. 

III.  The  French  and  Italian,  which  is  between  the 
two  others.'^ 

p.  22,  see  Diplomatische  Lehrgebaude,  vol.  ii.  tab,  8,  col.  1,  and  the  ancient 
Hebrew  alphiibot  in  Treschoiv,  Tent.  Descript  Codd.  Vindob.  V.  T. ;  Havn. 
1773,  8vo.  Eichhorn,  §  351.  [Home,  1.  c,  thinks  it  probable  the  letters 
used  in  MSS.  have  varied  at  different  times.  Kennicott,  Dissertations,  vol. 
ii.  p.  149,  sqq,,  makes  the  character  one  test  of  the  age  of  the  codex.  But  it 
is  not  easy  to  prove  this  position.  The  Basilidean  gems  —  sometimes  ap- 
pealed to  as  proofs  —  cannot  be  proved  to  be  Hebrew  letters,  (see  Matter, 
Hist.  crit.  du  Gnosticisme,  vol.  iii.  Planches,)  and  the  celebrated  Hebrew- 
Alphabet  in  Montfaucon,  1.  c,  is  taken  from  a  MS.  written  by  a  Greek  ca- 
ligraphist,  who  altered  the  letters  to  suit  his  own  caprice.  The  Hebrew 
characters  of  a  monk,  taken  from  Rabanus  Maurus,  De  Inventione  Lingua- 
rum,  are  strangely  disfigured.  See  Kopp,  Bilder  und  Schriften  der  Vorzeit 
Eichhorn,  §351.  Geseniiis,  Heb.  Sprache,  p.  177,  sq.  Hup/eld,  Ausfuhr- 
liche  Heb.  Grammatik,  (Cassel,  1841,)  pt.  i.  p.  32,  sqq.] 

"  jiiS  cn .  Probably  so  called  from  3'a7«,  a  kinsman  of  Eascki.  See 
Wolf,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  620.  Tyclisen,  Tent.  p.  2C3 ;  and  yet  he  says,  p.  347,  it  is, 
probably,  from  r\)ZT\  tli'^nr.     Compare  Tr.  Shabb.  in  §  89,  above. 

'■'  ::rO  ri"Tl .  See  the  tables  in  Tychsen,  1.  c,  and  Bellermann,  De  Usu 
Palaeograph.  Heb.  The  coronamenia,  ^■'a.n  or  V-'''^^  over  the  letters 
^3t]'jyc,  occur  in  the  Talmud,  Menacli,  fol.  29,  col.  2.  Gesenius  suspects 
traces  of  them  in  a  PhcEnician  inscription.  See  Hup/eld,  against  this  opinion, 
in  Theol.  Stud,  und  Krit.  for  1830,  vol.  ii.  p.  32. 

''  [The  Spanish  Hebrew  character  is  pretty  closely  imitated  in  the  beau- 


§112.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  391 

t 

%  112. 

Subscriptions  and  other  Maries  of  the  Antiquity  of  MayiuscrijJts. 

The  subscriptions  of  the  writer  or  owner,  containing 
the  date  of  the  transcription,  are  the  means  of  deter- 
mining the  antiquity  of  manuscripts.  But  these  have 
often  been  erased,  or  even  falsified,  or  they  are  inaccu- 
rate, unimportant,  and  mitrue.  Frequently,  on  account 
of  the  dismembered  state  of  the  manuscript,  they  are 
wanting  altogether."  [Very  few  manuscripts  have  sub- 
scriptions containing  the  date  of  the  copy.  Kennicott 
thinks  that,  among  all  the  manuscripts  collated  for  him, 
there  were  but  a  hundred  with  such  subscriptions.  Be- 
sides, it  is  often  difficult  to  iind  the  subscription ;  some- 
times it  is  in  the  Masora,  or  some  other  by-place,  or  in 
a  picture,  where  no  one  looks  for  it.  It  is  not  always 
of  any  use  when  found.  Sometimes  there  is  an  error 
in  the  date  ;  the  era  is  omitted,  while  the  year  is  given ; 


tiful  typo^aphy  of  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  and  in  Stephens^s  editions ;  tlie 
German  in  Munster's  Bible,]  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  340.  See  tlie  PLttes 
in  Bruns's  edition,  and  Prsef.  p.  ix.  Bruns,  in  Ammon^s  Neue  Theol.  Journal, 
vol.  vi.  p.  755.  Simon,  Hist.  crit.  du  V.  T.  p.  121.  On  the  peculiarities  of 
the  single  letters,  see  Eichhorn,  §353.    Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  i.  p.  246. 

There  are  some  peculiarities  of  punctuation  worthy  of  notice  ;  e>  g.  '^'^23 
[where  Hirek  stands  under  a  movable  yod  as  a  help,]  M'^a ,  also  nffl>a  or 
r^ldfh^  S>>3t^',  n^"i,  -bs,  1"'i3>;  a  frequent  use  of  iJop^e,  &c.,  of  letters  used 
to  fill  the  chasms  in  the  lines.  [Sometimes  a  part  of  a  letter  is  put  in  to  fill 
up  the  line  ;  thus,  in  Cod.  5  of  Kennicott,  a  third  of  the  'iIJ  is  omitted,  making 
it  appear  as  an  5  .  So  we  find  the  two  first  letters  of  C^J^ffin  appear  as  Sn . 
Eichhorn,  §  357,  and  the  auithorities  there  citod.] 

*  Schnurrer,  De  Codd.  Heb.  Manuscriptorum  ^Etate  difficulter  determinan- 
da,  diss.  p.  2,  sqq.  Eichhorn,  §  36:3.  On  the  inaccuracy  of  the  subscription 
to  the  Berlin  MS.,  No.  611,  apud  Kennicott,  soe  Schnurrer,  p.  7,  sqq.  fFotf, 
I  c.  vol  i.  p.  166,  ii.  p.  305,  sqq.     Jablonski,  Prsef  ad  Bib.  Heb.  §  36,  37. 


392  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  1  ^3. 

the  hundreds  or  thousands  are  left  out  of  the  date  ;  only 
the  name  of  the  copjist  is  given  ;  he  gives  the  date  in 
an  enigmatical  manner,  and  clothes  his  fact  in  a  dress  so 
cunning  that  only  a  lucky  accident  can  take  it  off. 
The  possessor  of  a  manuscript  sometimes  affixed  to  it  an 
ancient  date,  or  the  name  of  some  famous  rabbin,  to 
increase  its  value.  The  Talmudical  law  makes  it  the 
duty  of  every  Jew  to  make,  or  cause  to  be  made,  a  copy 
of  the  Law.  A  man  who  inherited  such  a  copy  some- 
times erased  the  old  and  affixed  a  more  modern  date.]" 
Besides  the  subscriptions,  other  signs  of  antiquity 
have  been  pointed  out  by  critics ;  such  are  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  writing  character,  the  omission  of  the 
Masora,  the  unusual  letters,  the  vowel  points,  &c.  But 
all  these  signs  are  wholly  uncertain.* 

§113. 

Tlie   Writers  of  the  Manuscripts. 

Most  of  the  manuscripts  have  passed  through  several 
hands  —  those  of  the  writer  of  the  consonants,  ("icid,) 
those  of  the  writer  of  the  vowel  points,  (T?!^',)  of 
the  corrector,  of  the  writer  of  the  Masora  and  scholia. 


[Eichhorn,  §  363.  A  Jew  offered  a  MS.  for  sale,  at  Amsterdam,  with  the 
date  300  B.  C. ;  yet  it  was  furnished  with  the  Masora,  and  had  all  the 
marks  of  youth.  See  more  respecting  the  subscriptions  of  MSS.,  their 
condition,  &c.,  in  Kennicott,  Dissertations,  vol.  i.  p.  309,  sqq.,  vol.  ii.  p.  515, 
sqq.,  and  the  authorities  in  Eichhorn,  1.  c] 

*  Jablonsbj,  I  c.  §  37.  Wolf,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  326.  Houhigant,  Prol.  p.  195. 
Kennicott,  Dissertations,  vol.  i.  p.  308,  sqq.  De  Rossi,  Prol.  p.  xiv.,  sqq.  On 
the  other  hand,  Carpzov,  Crit  sac.  p.  376.  Tychsen,  Tent.  p.  260,  sqq. 
Schnurrer,  p.  21,  sqq.  —  Eichhorn,  §37],  has  shown  that  it  is  not  easy  to  de- 
termine, with  certainty,  the  country  of  the  MSS.  But  see  Bruns,  Prffif.  ad 
KenniaM,  Diss.  Gen.  p.  ix.     De  Rossi,  L  c.  p.  xx.  sqq. 


^113.]  CRITICISM    OF    THF.    TEXT.  393 

and  of  the  freshener,  although  sometimes  the  duties  of 
all  these  were  performed  by  one  man.  The  text  and 
the  points,  however,  were  always  written  at  different 
times,  as  it  appears  from  the  fact  that  ink  of  different 
color  is  used  for  each,  and  that  the  vowels  do  not  always 
agree  with  the  text.  The  Keri  in  the  margin  proceeded 
properly  from  the  punctuator.  He  likewise  frequently 
corrected  the  text,  although  many  manuscripts  have 
passed  under  the  hands  of  a  different  corrector  ;  and  the 
writer  of  the  Masora  has  sometimes  allowed  himself  to 
make  corrections.  The  accuracy  of  the  corrections  is 
commonly  sacrificed  to  the  beauty  of  the  manuscripts. 
The  writer  of  the  Masora  is  likewise  often  a  different 
person;  but  this  cannot  certainly  be  inferred  from  the 
variations  between  the  Masora  and  the  text.  Some- 
times there  are  critical  remarks  in  the  margin,  which 
confirm  what  the  writer  of  consonants,  and  the  punctu- 
ator, have  written ;  there  are  likewise  scholia.  Finally, 
many  passages  have  been  subsequently  written  over 
again." 

Tychsen  supposes  that  many  manuscripts  were  writ- 
ten by  Christians ;  but  none  are  found  in  which  this  is 
claimed  in  the  subscription.* 

"  [Bruns  finds  some  passages  proceeding  from  a  second  corrector  of  the 
IMS.,  but  Kennicott  takes  no  notice  of  them.]  Eichhorn,  §  364,  366 — 370. 
Michaelis's  description  of  the  Cassel  MS.  in  Or.  Bib.  vol.  i.  p.  219,  sqq.  Jab- 
lonski,  1.  c.  §  36.  [Eichhorn,  §  365,  thinks  it  probable  women  and  children 
sometimes  copied  MSS.] 

'■  See  TychsevUs  opinion  refuted  by  Eichhorn,  §  365.  The  passage  of  the 
Talmud,  Bab.  Gittim,  fol.  45,  col,  2,  which  speaks  of  Christian  transcribers,  is 
of  a  merely  casuistic  character. 

[The  oldest  MSS.  are  not  necessarily  the  best  The  Spanish  MSS.  are 
generally  esteemed  the  most  accurate ;  the  French  and  Italian  hold  the 
next  place.  Such  is  the  decision  of  the  rabbins  themselves.  "  This  is  a 
Spanish  MS, ;  so  the  reading  must  stand,"  said  R.  Abraham  Ben  David.  But 
to  this  rule  there  are  exceptions.     Each  MS,  must  be  examined  without 

VOL.  I.  50 


394  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^114,  «,  6. 

§  114,  a. 

C.     Private  Manuscripts  in  the  Rabbinical  Character. 

These  are,  for  tlie  greatest  part,  written  in  the  cursive 
rabbinical  character,  or  one  which  approaches  it  very 
nearly."  They  are  written  without  points,  with  numer- 
ous  abbreviations,    and    are    generally   of  very   recent 

te/ 

%  114,  h. 

Manuscripts  of  the   Chinese  Je^vs. 

The  manuscripts  of  the  Chinese  Jews  are  entirely 
masoretic.  [They  have  rolls  containing  the  Law, 
called  Ta-King,  in  Chinese,  and  also  a  book  of  extracts 
from  the  rolls,  with  a  supplement  in  two  parts.  The 
rolls  are  written  without  points  or  accents  ;  but  corona- 


prejudice,  and  judged  by  its  own  merits.  Eichhorn,  §  373.  Bruns,  Pi-sef. 
ad  Kennicott,  p.  iv.,  sqq.,  thinks  Kennicott  lias  taken  various  readings  from 
very  bad  MSS.  "I  cannot  but  confess,"  says  he,  "I  think  differently  of  the 
value  of  the  Heb.  MSS.,  and  the  various  readings  derived  from  tliem,  from 
Kennicott  and  some  others,  who  follow  his  footsteps  too  closely.  They  are 
not  sufficiently  anxious  to  investigate  the  goodness  of  the  MSS.,  and  what- 
ever reading  they  find,  in  any  sort  of  a  MS.,  if  it  agree  with  ancient  versions, 
they  seize  it  up  greedily,  and  oppose  it  to  the  masoretic  text.  But  in  pass- 
ing judgment  upon  variants,  antiquity  is  not  so  much  to  be  considered  as 
the  goodness  of  the  MS.,  and  its  freedom  from  mistakes  in  writing.  One 
such  MS.  is  worth  twenty  others  written  negligently  and  carelessly.  Bibles 
written  for  the  instruction  of  youth  sometimes  confound  the  Keri  and  Ke- 
thib,  and  so  might  lead  a  critic  into  errors,  if  he  were  not  aware  of  the 
fact."     See  Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  422 — 436.] 

On  the  different  rabbinical  writing  characters,  the  Raschi  characters, 
&c.,  see  Tychsen,  Tent  p.  267,  313,  sqq.  Bellermann,  Pala;og.  Heb.  p. 
44,  sqq. 

»  Kennicott,  Diss.  Gen.    Cod.  9,  13,  15,  22,  32,  34,  346,  and  others,  are  in 
this  character. 


^114,  C]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  395 

menta,  it  appears,  are  placed  over  some  of  the  letters. 
Eichhorn  tliinks  these  manuscripts  were  written  in  the 
twelfth  century. 

The  extracts  from  the  Law  are  divided  into  fifty-three 
books.  The  supplement  contains  a  part  of  Joshua  and 
Judges,  the  whole  books  of  Samuel,  part  of  Kings,  and 
the  Psalms.  They  have  also  some  of  the  other  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  in  a  form  more  or  less  perfect, 
namely :  parts  of  Chronicles,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Isaiah, 
and  Jeremiah;  a  few  verses  from  Daniel;  some  j)assages 
from  Jonah,  Micah,  and  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah, 
Haggai,  and  Zechariah  ;  but  nothing  from  the  other 
Prophets,  from  Job,  the  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  or  Can- 
ticles. The  manuscripts  which  do  not  contain  the  Law 
are  furnished  with  our  present  vowels  and  accents,  and 
greater  and  lesser  letters,  but  not  with  the  Keri.  The 
form  of  the  consonants  is  the  same  as  with  the  European 
Jews.]" 

^  114,  c. 

The  Manuscripts  of  the  Malabar  Jews. 

[Doctor  Buchanan  procured  a  copy  of  the  Pentateuch 
from  the  black  Jews  at  Malabar.  It  is  written  on  a  roll 
of  goat-skin  dyed  red  ;  is  forty-eight  feet  in  length,  and 
a  little  less  than  two  feet  in  breadth.  It  contains  the 
Pentateuch,  with  the  exception  of  the  whole  of  Leviti- 
cus and  the  greater  part  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is  clearly 
and  legibly   written,   in  the   square  letter,  without  the 


"  Von  Murr,  Versuch  einer  Gesch.  der  Juden  in  China,  nebst  Kdgler's 
Beschreib.  ihrer  heilige  Biicher;  1806,  8vo.  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  v.  p. 
79,  sqq.,  ix.  p.  40,  xv.  p.  15,  sqq.  EiMiom,  §  376.  [Lettres  edifiantes, 
de  la  Compagnie  de  Jesus,  Recueil  31 ;  Par.  1774.] 


396  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^    11  J. 

accents  or  points.  It  contains  not  more  than  fortj  va- 
riants from  Van  der  Hooght's  edition,  and  still  less  from 
that  of  Athias ;  but  it  has  four  readings  not  found  in 
Kennicott's  Bible.  With  these  exceptions,  it  differs 
from  common  sjnagogue  rolls  onlj  in  the  material  on 
which  it  is  written.] " 

^  115. 

2.    Original  Editions. 

Editions  taken  directly  from  manuscripts  possess  all 
the  value  of  the  originals  themselves,  and  are  still  more 
valuable  if  they  are  accurate  copies  of  the  manuscripts, 
and  have  not  been  corrected  by  the  Masora.  The 
editions  are  divided  into  masoretic  and  unmasoretic. 
But  after  the  collation  of  so  many  copies,  some  readings 
are  still  found  in  the  printed  editions,  says  De  Rossi, 
and  even  in  Rabbi  Chajim's  edition,  which  have  not  as 
yet  been  found  in  any  manuscripts.* 

"  Yeates's  collation  of  an  Indian  copy  of  the  Heb.  Pent,  with  preliminary 
remarks,  containing  an  exact  description  of  the  MS.,  and  a  notice  of  some 
others  (Heb.  and  Syriac)  collected  by  Buchanan  in  the  year  1806,  and  now 
deposited  in  the  public  library  at  Cambridge ;  also,  a  collation  and  descrip- 
tion of  a  MS.  roll  of  the  book  of  Esther,  and  the  Megillah  of  Ahasuenis, 
&c. ;  Cambridge,  1812,  4to.  [See  Kennicott,  Dissertations,  vol.  ii.  p.  532, 
and  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  iv.  p.  97.  Home,  1.  c.  pt  i.  ch,  iii.  sect,  i.,  gives  a 
fac  simile  of  the  MS.  Marsh  (Lectures,  &c.)  considers  it  of  value  ;  but  Lee 
(Proleg.  m  Bib.  Polyg.  Londinensia  minora,  prol.  v.  sect.  xiv.  p.  2.'j,  cited  in 
Home)  thinks  it  is  the  work  of  an  ignorant  scribe,  copied  from  a  maso- 
retic MS.,  and  of  little  value.  On  this  subject,  see  Paulus's  Account  of 
the  Hebrew  Chronicles  of  the  Malabar  Jews,  in  Eiclihom,  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  i. 
p.  925,  sqq. ;  the  essay  of  Riiss,  on  the  same  subject,  ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  507 
sqq.,  also  vol.  iii.  p.  182,  and  v.  399,  sqq.] 

'  De  Rossi,  Prolegg.  p.  xxiv. 


^116.]  PRINCIPLES    OF    CRITICISM.  397 

CHAPTER    II. 

CRITICAL   MAXIMS. 

§  116. 
FALSE   MAXIMS. 

["To  make  a  fundamental  and  just  criticism  of  the  text 
requires  extensive  and  accurate  knowledge,  especially  an 
acquaintance  with  manuscripts,  editions,  old  versions, 
and  other  ancient  writings.  Christian  and  Jewish;  an 
acquaintance  with  the  diiferent  wajs  in  which  various 
readings  originate,  with  the  whole  history  of  the  text, 
and  with  many  minute  details.  It  requires,  therefore, 
a  particular  circumspection,  which  is  only  to  be  obtained 
by  long  practice  and  a  careful  study  of  the  great  critics. 
But,  after  all,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  avoid  stum- 
bling sometimes,  as  not  only  Houbigant  and  Lowth  have 
done,  but  Kennicott,  and  even  the  cautious  Michaelis, 
who  have  sometimes  altered  a  reading  unnecessarily. 
These  great  examples  should  be  a  warning  to  beginners, 
who  are  generally  too  much  incHned  to  alter  the  common 
reading."] " 

The  conflicting  testimony  of  the  witnesses  can  neither 
be  judged  of  by  their  number''  nor  their  antiquity,"  but 

"  [Jahn,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  493,  sq.,  where  see  other  excellent  remarks.] 
'"  The  Jews  themselves  admit  this.  Meier  Hallevi,  in  Kenmcott,  Diss. 
Gen.  p.  lie.  [He  says  he  rejected  the  modern  MSS.,  and  followed  the 
ancient.]  Compare  above,  §  89.  De  Rossi  justly  observes,  (Prol.  canon  14, 
p.  4,)  the  true  reading  may  be  contained  in  a  single  codex,  contrary  to  the 
authority  of  all  the  rest. 

'  Meier   Hallevi,  1.  c,  admits  this,  as  also  Walton,  Prol.  vi.  6.     [Hallevi 
says,  among  the   ancient  and  genuine  MSS.,  he  inclines  to  follow   the 


398  PRINCIPLES    OF    CRITICISM.  [^  116. 

by  their  critical  character  alone.  [But  when  other 
things  are  equal,  —  which  rarely  happens,  —  the  greater 
number  of  witnesses  must  decide;  and  the  larger  this 
number  is,  the  more  probable  is  the  reading  for  which 
they  testify.  The  indirect  versions,  and  manuscripts 
allied  to  them,  are  to  be  consulted  as  collateral  evidence. 
When  very  old  witnesses  are  on  one  side,  and  very 
good  manuscripts  on  the  other,  important  internal  ar- 
guments may  decide  in  favor  of  the  reading.  The 
ancient  witnesses  are  of  more  weight  than  the  modern  ; 
old  versions  are  more  important  than  the  manuscripts, 
and  the  internal  argument  has  great  value.] " 

In  estimating  the  critical  value  of  variants,  no 
preference  is  to  be  shown  that  is  not  based  on  a 
critical  judgment  of  the  variants  themselves.  The 
maxims  which  aid  in  making  this  Judgment  will  be 
shown  in  the  following  sections.* 

greatest  number  ;  "  for  Ave  are  commanded  in  the  Law,"  he  adds,  "  to  follow 
the  greatest  number  in  a  matter  where  there  is  a  disagreement.  '  JVe  ought 
to  incline  after  the  many^  Ex.  xxii.  2."  But  he  must  have  had  a  curious 
variant  in  that  text,  for  our  editions  and  MSS.  read  that  famous  verse  with  a 
negative,  &c.  T<'^y}'T\  hb .]  Dc  Rossi  is  wrong,  1.  c.  "  The  more  the  MSS. 
agree  with  the  ancient  MSS.  of  the  old  translators,  and  preserve  the  genu- 
ine readings  of  ancient  copies,  the  better  is  their  condition,  the  greater  their 
authority."  Compare,  also,  canon  19.  ["  Among  MSS.  of  whatever  writer, 
age,  character,  and  condition,  if  any  one  preserve  the  true  reading  of  those 
MSS.  which  are  represented  by  the  Samaritan  text  and  ancient  versions,  it 
is  to  be  considered  of  great  authority.  Canon  21.  MSS.  not  amended  often 
preserve  the  best  readings.  A  variant  supported  by  the  Samaritan  text  and 
ancient  versions,  and  the  best  and  most  ancient  MSS.,  is  the  true  reading. 
(7anon  23.  Ancient  MSS.,  other  things  being  equal,  are  preferable  to  the 
modern ;  the  amended  to  the  not  amended ;  the  few  which  differ  from  one 
another,  to  the  many  that  are  like  one  another."  Canon  33,  sqq.  Bruns 
( Praef  ad  Kcnnicotl,  p.  iv.)  says,  in  a  quotation,  "  We  must  stand  by  the  authori- 
ty of  all  that  agree,  or  of  a  few  excellent  codices  of  the  best  character."] 
See  Walton,  Prol.  vi.  4. 

"  \Jahn,  1.  c] 

*  Different  estimates  have  been  formed  of  the  value  of  the  Keri  and 


^117,118.]         PRINCIPLES    OF    CRITICISM.  399 

§  117. 

THE  MOST  IMPORTANT  MAXIMS  IN  RESPECT  TO   THE  ORIGI- 
NALITY   OF  THE   READING. 

Since  the  design  of  the  critic  is  to  restore  the  original 
reading,  therefore  the  question  to  be  asked  respecting  the 
variants  is  this :  Do  thej  bear,  in  themselves,  marks 
of  originality  ?  or  do  they  betray  their  later  origin  ? 
The  character  of  originality  rests  on  these  two  grounds, 
namely  :  — 

I.  On  the  probability — judging  from  the  rest  of  the 
text  which  is  supposed  to  be  accurate  —  that  the  author 
wrote  so,  and  not  otherwise.  This  is  the  exegetico-crit- 
ical  ground  of  probability. 

II.  On  the  probability  which  arises  from  a  comparison 
of  the  different  readings,  that  the  one  has  given  occasion 
to  the  origin  of  the  other.  This  is  the  historico-critical 
ground  of  originality.     Something  must  be  said  of  each. 

^  118. 

I.    EXEGETICO-CRITICAL   GROUNDS   OF   ORIGINALITY. 

1.    Considerations  drawn  from  the  General  Laws  of 
THE  Mind. 

A.     Logical  Grounds  of  Originality. 
Since  every  writer  is  subject  to  the  universal  laws  of 

Kethib.  The  Jews  and  the  old  Christian  critics  prefer  the  Keri  en- 
tirely. Buxtorf,  De  Punct.  Antiqu.,  &.c.  p.  174.  J.  Avenar.,  Gram.  Heb. 
p.  522.  Tk.  Hackspan,  De  Script  Jud.  in  Theol.  Usu,  p.  299.  Hottinger, 
Thes.  Phil.  p.  418.  See  others  cited  in  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  352.  The 
Kethib  is  preferred  entirely  by  Danz,  Sincer.  Script,  vacill.  §  28,  p.  86,  and 
in  the  main  by  Schnltens,  Diss.  ii.  de  Authentia  selectiorum  Chethibim; 
Franeq.  1725.  See  (ElricK's  Collect  Opusc.  vol.  ii.  fFolf  (Bib.  Heb.  vol. 
ij.  p.  520)  passes  a  wiser  judgment,  as  also  Carpzov  (p.  353)  and  others. 


400  PRI^'CIPLES    OF    CiUTIClSM.  [^119. 

thought,  and  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  he  has  written 
nonsense,  therefore  every  reading  which  is  absolutely 
senseless  and  contradictory  is  to  be  rejected  for  some 
other  which  has  a  meaning,  and  harmonizes  with  the 
context." 

Yet  this  rule  requires  to  be  applied  with  great  cau- 
tion. We  must  take  all  possible  pains  to  find  a  suita- 
ble meaning  in  the  words;  we  must  not  measure  the 
author's  thought  too  rigorously  by  our  standards,*  and 
must  remember  it  is  possible  he  drew  from  different 
sources." 

^119. 

B.     Grammatical  Grounds  of  Originality. 

A  writer  cannot  transgress  the  laws  of  language. 
Correctness  of  language,  therefore,  may,  in  general,  be 
considered  a  mark  of  the  true  reading.  But  amongst 
Hebrew  writers,  whose  language  permitted  great  irregu- 
larities,  especially  in  gender    and  number,   and   whose 

"  Thus  the  Kethib  tt;^ ,  Levit.  xi.  21,  and  Isa.  ix,  2,  is  to  be  rejected,  and 
tlie  Keri  1^  to  be  received.  On  the  contrary,  the  Keri  is  to  be  rejected  for 
the  Kethib,  in  Exod.  xxi.  8,  Ps.  cxxxix.  16,  et  al.  Compare  Aurivill.,  De 
Var.  Lect.  K^i  et  ib ,  in  Cod.  Bib.  Diss.  p.  469,  sqq.  Cappellus,  vol.  ii.  p.  264. 
The  Kethib  'y  is  to  be  rejected  for  tlie  Keri  "T^ ,  1  Sam.  iv.  13.  For 
similar  reasons,  in  Ps.  Ixxiii.  7,  with  the  LXX.,  the  Syriac,  and  Vulgate,  we 
must  read  'i>23iS' ,  instead  of  the  raasoretic  i>:3^^ ;  in  Jerem.  xxviii.  1,  we 
must  read  Ztdekiah,  instead  of  Jehoiakiin.  In  2  Kings  viii.  16,  we  must 
Btrike  out  the  words  rvm^  ^^>3  tsSffiirT^I .     See  above,  §  81. 

''  Thus  the  reading  of  the  Sam.,  Syr.,  and  LXX.,  in  Ex.  ii.  2,  "'CSJn ,  is 
to  be  rejected,  and  the  masoretic  text  received.  Gesenius,  De  Pent  Sam. 
p.  50.  The  Kethib  Isa.  ix.  2  may  still  be  contended  for.  See  Hiizig, 
in  loc. 

"  Thus  the  erroneous  reading  Michcd,  instead  of  Merab,  in  2  Sam.  xxi.  8, 
may  perhaps,  be  referred  to  another  source.     See  belaw,  §  179. 


^120.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  40 1 

literary  treasures  we  do  not  fully  possess,  a  regard  for 
accuracy  of  language  has  produced  a  host  of  variants  ;" 
yet  it  can  but  seldom  serve  to  restore  the  true  text.* 


^  120. 

C.     Rhetorical  Grounds  of  Originality. 

Most  writers  recognize  certain  natural  or  conventional 
rules  of  style ;  and  their  text  may  also  be  criticised  and 
corrected  according  to  these  rules.  But  the  Hebrew 
writers  are  bound  so  loosely  by  such  rules,  that  they 
seem  rather  to  have  sought  to  remain  free  from  them.'' 
They  do  not  even  adhere  rigidly  to  the  parallelismus 
membrorum,  but  often  depart  from  it  in  a  striking  manner. 
It  is,  therefore,  only  with  the  greatest  caution  that  this 
rule  can  be  applied  to  the  criticism  of  the  text.*^ 

*  There  are  numerous  grammatical  Keris  of  the  Sam.  text,  and  the  ver- 
sions ;  see,  e.  g.,  on  Ps.  xxx.  4,  xxii.  27,  Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  26,  sqq.  The 
moderns  have  made  many  critical  attempts  to  amend  the  apparent  gram- 
matical errors  of  the  text  See  examples  in  Houbigant,  Michaelis,  and 
others. 

^  The  following  Kethibs  are,  perhaps,  to  be  rejected,  and  the  Keris  re- 
ceived: 2  Sam.  xix.  32,  '{^jyj^-  ^■^,  Ker.  ^TT^n  ns;  2  Kings  xxiii.  33, 
^i)?3a,  Ker.  "i-'3?2;  1  Kings  xvii.  14,  pD,  Ker.  ntn ;  (but  perhaps  the 
original  reading  was  rijPi ,  for  which  'f,Ti  was  written  by  mistake ;)  Jer. 
xxxiv.  11,  t:^u3i3i;fl1,  Ker.  BVrb;'^!;  2  Sam.  xx.  15,  inip'^'l ,  Ker.  lbni?->1. 
But  compare  Cappdliis,  vol.  i.  p.  208,  who  justly  defends  the  Kethib,  Ez.  iv.  4, 
tl"ini)n?3  ,  against  the  Keri  Q^^ni?: . 

"  The  following  are  uncritical  corrections  made  by  a  wrong  application  of 
this  rule  of  rhetorical  uniformity  of  style :  e.  g.  the  addition  of  the  LXX., 
Gen.  i.  6,  xul  iyiveio  ovjotg  ;  verse  8,  xal  eldsp  6  ^«6f ,  on  xaXop ;  that  of 
the  Sam.  LXX.,  1  Cod.  R.  in  verse  14,  flstn  pS  ^"^xnii .  So  in  the  reading 
or  version  of  the  Syriac,  in  verse  26,  V"1«n  ni.T  iiS ,  for  flsn  ^53 ;  of 
the  Sam.  Gen.  xxiv.  22,  nE»  bs  BC^I ,  after  verse  43. 

"*  The  reading  in  Isa.  li.  19,  l^ryi"^ ,  Cod.  1,  Kennicott,  and  versions,  for 
VOL.    I.  51 


402  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [§  121. 

["  111  the  poetic  books  and  passages,  by  noticing  the 
relation  between  verses  and  members  of  verses,  an  ac 
curate  comparison  of  the  context  may  be  made;  for  the 
members  of  the  periods  sometimes  correspond  with  one 
another  in  sense,  by  way  of  synonyme,  or  antithesis,  and 
sometimes  inform.  New  light  will  be  shed  on  the  con- 
nection, and  even  on  the  contested  text,  by  noticing  this 
parallelism  in  the  verse.  The  members  that  correspond 
to  one  another  are  sometimes  two;  sometimes  three, 
where  the  third  is  unlike  the  others;  sometimes  four, 
where  the  first  corresponds  to  the  third,  and  the  second 
to  the  fourth ;  sometimes  five,  where  the  dissimilar  mem- 
ber stands  in  the  middle.  Now,  if  the  critic  notices 
the  corresponding  member,  it  will  often  help  him  de- 
cide upon  the  doubtful  reading.  Still,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, a  reading  that  suits  the  corresponding  mem- 
ber is  not  necessarily  genuine."]" 


SS  121. 

2.    Considerations  drawn  from  the    peculiar  Character 
OF  THE  Writer. 

The  above  more  general  reasons  are  made  more  defi- 
nite, but  are  likewise  limited,  and  sometimes  removed, 

*^'o:nH,  and  the  additions  to  Isa.  xlviii.  12,  ^"I'Z'S'  after  the  word  -pJ''^,  in 
KennicoWs  and  De  Rossi's  MSS.,  are  to  be  rejected.  Most  alterations  of 
the  text  in  Ziegler,  (Spriichworter,)  who  follows  the  LXX.,  rest  on  this  uncer- 
tain ground  ;  e.  g.  Prov.  iii.  12,  ix.  29,  30,  xii.  21.  On  the  other  hand,  see 
Bauer,  Crit.  sac.  p.  456,  who  very  properly  rejects  the  reading  is5^"i"ii  ,  Am. 
V.  6.  In  Ps.  xxxvii.  28,  the  reading  of  the  LXX.  and  Symmachus  seems  to 
be  an  arbitrary  alteration  to  conform  to  the  parallelism  and  rhythm.  ["  On 
the  contrary,  the  Kethib,  in  Job  xxx.  11,  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  Keri  on 
account  of  the  parallel."  See  Hirzd  and  Etvald,  in  loc]  See  Olshausen^ 
Emend,  p.  14. 

*  Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  487,  sqq. 


^  121.]  CRlTICISAf    OF    THE    TEXT.  403 

by  the  writer's  peculiar  manner  in  thought,  language, 
and  style,"  and  in  particular  by  the  peculiarity  of  the 
context  in  the  discourse.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  most 
important  rule  by  which  the  critic,  as  well  as  the  inter- 
preter, is  to  judge  of  all.*     However,  the  application  of 

"•  [The  mistakes  often  made  in  applying  this  rule,  render  it  very  suspicious. 
When  the  Kritik  der  Oftenbarung  was  published,  it  was  universally  ascribed 
to  Kant.  No  less  than  eight  scholars,  his  personal  friends,  were  certain  it 
was  his.  But  it  was  written  by  Fichte.  M.  Schlegel  disputes  the  genuine- 
ness of  some  of  the  dramas  that  have  long  passed  for  the  works  of  Shak- 
speare,  and  ascribes  to  him  works  which  have  hitherto  passed  under  other 
names.  Every  body  knows  with  what  confidence  the  "Dreams  of  an  Opi- 
um-Eater" were  ascribed  to  Mr.  Coleridge,  and  how  falsely.] 

*>  The  readings  preferred  by  Midutelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xiv.  Nos.  233,  234, 
viz.  Isa.  ix.  10,  li'^^  "in,  for  V?1 ;  Isa.  xiv.  9,  '^'l^t^?,  for  "^l^tny;  Isa. 
liii.  8,  r^^'^b  "jp,  for  i?2b  2)35,  conflict  with  the  sense,  and  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  writer.  Whether  the  passages,  Isa-  vii.  17,  ^^rt*  Tl^^a  ns;  verse 
20,  ni-i:;!;  ':]?'^?i ;  ix.  14,  131  CNin  J^in  ts'ij^  t^icil  '■{r.l,  are  to  be  taken  for 
glosses,  as  Houbigant,  Loivth,  Koppe,  and  Geseaius,  think,  may  be  doubted, 
on  account  of  the  analogy  between  them  and  ch.  v.  7.  Whether  we  are  to 
read  'D^'n'a  in  Ps.  xviii.  8,  (following  2  Sam.  xxii.  8,)  instead  of  ?a''in,  is 
to  be  decided  from  the  entire  character  of  the  later  recension  of  this  passage 
in  the  psalm.     See  De  Weite,  Com.  iiber  die  Ps.  in  loc. 

The  same  laws  apply  to  the  criticism  of  the  punctuation,  and  the  division 
into  words.  1.  Jud.  xx.  48,  Cri'n  is  to  be  read,  instead  of  tsrTO  ;  Job  xxxiv. 
18,  '^.>;:*n,  instead  of  "i?:i<:n ;  xxxvii.  11,  135,  instead  of  115;  Am.  iv.  3, 
HDJi^brn,  instead  of  "S^OT,  on  account  of  the  sense;  Hos.  vi.  5,  "itsBCTal 

T  •.■•-:   T  -  :   •  •  T    : 

^  -'^  ^i«5 ,  instead  of  S^^^  "lis  'rj'^S5r?31 ;  Ps,  Ixxv.  1,  "innTpJp  for  "ir^n????  . 
For  the  same  reason, 

2.  Prov.  xii.  28,    ^!*,  instead  of  b^,  on  account  of  the  signification  of 

r!!l"^tl5,  heatenpath;  Isa.  xxxii.  12,  ^"b,  instead  of  tD';i']m',  on  account  of 
the  meaning  and  construction  of  T5D .     Compare  Gesenius,  in  loc. 

3.  Job  xxiv.  12,  a"P\:  ,  instead  of  the  flat  t'lrT^  ;  Ps.  Iv.  12,  rrix^^n^a ,  in- 
stead of  r.iK>an?3 ,  on  account  of  the  parallelism,  and  because  the  latter 
word  is  p?culiar  and  scarcely  probable ;  in  Ps.  xlii.  6,  the  division  of  the 
words  and  verse  is  to  be  altered  after  verse  12,  and  Ps.  xliii.  5,  on  account 
of  the  rhythmical  symmetry.     See  De  JVette,  1.  c.  in  loc. 


404  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [5}  122. 

this  rule  is  somewhat  limited  by  the  fact,  that  the  lit- 
erary character  of  the  Hebrew  writers  is,  for  the  most 
part,  very  fluctuating  and  uncertain. 

This  peculiarity  of  character  may  be  distinguished 
into  nationality,  (the  peculiarities  of  the  nation,)  or  indi- 
viduality, (the  peculiarities  of  the  individual  writer.) 

[As  Jahn  has  said,  every  author  wrote  in  a  certain 
land,  province,  and  age,  and  under  certain  definite  cir- 
cumstances ;  now,  a  reading  which  does  not  suit  this 
land,  province,  age,  and  circumstances,  is  suspicious  and 
improbable.  So  the  history  of  the  writer  is  equally 
important  in  criticism  and  exegesis. 

Every  author  has,  likewise,  his  peculiar  language, 
conforming  to  his  age  and  dwelling-place,  and  a  stylo 
suited  to  his  own  course  of  thought  and  circle  of  images  ; 
he  has  also  his  own  peculiar  doctrines,  or,  at  least,  modi- 
fications thereof  peculiar  to  himself.  From  a  considera- 
tion of  these  things,  we  may,  sometimes,  conclude  what 
the  author  probably  wrote;  for  a  reading  that  does  not 
agree  with  these  peculiarities  is  suspicious.  In  conformi- 
ty with  this  rule,  in  Job,  Hosea,  Micah,  Joel,  and  Isaiah, 
the  ornate  reading  is  most  probable,  while  the  least 
ornate  is  most  probable  in  Haggai,  Malachi,  Ezra,  and 
Nehemiah.  But  the  application  of  this  rule  demands  so 
much  attention,  and  so  many  delicate  observations,  that 
too  much  caution  cannot  be  observed  in  the  use  of  it.]" 

§  122. 

II.     HISTORICO-CRITICAL   GROUNDS   OF  ORIGINALITY. 

Except  in  unfortunate  and  rare  cases,  the  original 
reading  is  to  be  found  among  the  variants  of  a  passage. 

"  [Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  401 ,  sqq.] 


^    123.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  405 

Now,  since  the  original  reading  was  not  only  the  first  in 
order  of  time,  but  has  given  occasion  to  all  the  other 
readings,  in  one  way  or  anotlier,  there  arises  the  follow- 
ing rule :  That  is  the  original  reading  which  explains 
the  origin  of  all  the  rest. 

In  comparing  the  readings,  we  ought  to  consider  all 
the  ways  in  which  false  readings  originate."  But  it  is 
of  special  importance  to  consider  whether  the  text  has 
been  altered  by  design;  and  hence  arises  this  rule: 
The  more  difficult  reading  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  more 
easy. 

These  rules  are  to  be  applied  chiefly  in  respect  to 
the  sense  or  logical  meaning  of  the  text ;  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  writer;  to  the  rhetorical  structure  of  the 
passage.  But  we  must  always  consider  the  peculiarities 
of  the  individual  writer.* 


§  123. 

JUDGMENT   OF  THE   CRITICAL   WITNESSES   AS   A    WHOLE. 

We   pass  from  a  criticism  of  single  readings  to  an 
estimate  of  the  entire  text  of  single  witnesses.     Then 

"  §  82—84,  above. 

'  ].  /n  respect  of  (he  sense.  It  would  not  be  critical  to  wish  to  alter  Ezra 
V.  4,  on  account  of  the  obscurity  and  incorrectness  of  the  narrative.  Com- 
pare verse  8,  9.  The  Sam.  Pent,  in  Gen.  xi.  32,  makes  Terah  one  hundred 
and  forty-five  years  old,  obviously  to  remove  the  contradiction  with  xii.  4. 

2.  In  respect  of  the  language.  Ps.  xii.  8,  the  reading  13'17prri ,  ^3T.:?i  > 
in  the  MSS.  and  versions,  is  to  be  rejected,  and  the  more  difficult  reading 
C^,^i":'ji ,  ^:1■i:?^ ,  is  to  be  preferred.     So  the  Keri  in  Ps.  xxx.  4,  Prov.  viii.  35, 

&c.,  is  to  be  rejected,  and  the  Kethib  preferred.  Gen.  xxiv.  4,  Si*  "^5  of 
Kennicotfs  and  Be  Rossi's  MSS.,  the  Masora  and  Sam.  text,  instead  of  ^^ , 
is  the  easier  and  the  worse  reading.     So  Num.  xi.  25,  MtCH*^  ^'b^ ,  of  the 


406  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TFAT.  [^  123. 

an  opinion  is  formed  against  the  Sa7naritan  text  and  the 
versions,  which,  for  the  most  part,  represent  the  text  by 
more  easy  readings,  that  commend  themselves  to  a 
superficial  observer,  and  in  favor  of  the  masoretic  text, 
in  which,  however,  the  Keris,  and  the  readings  of  the 
manuscripts  that  follow  them,  or  agree  with  the  versions 
and  the  Samaritan  copy,  are  to  be  suspected  of  being 
explanations  and  corrections."  ["  The  readings  which 
are  unanimously  supported  by  the  old  versions  and 
manuscripts,  or  for  which  they  give  an  overpowering 
testimony,  and  which  are,  at  the  same  time,  supported 
by  internal  arguments,  must  be  genuine.  Since  this  is 
almost  always  the  case  with  the  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, its  trustworthiness  is  established,  and  the  propo- 

Sam.,  instead  of  ^.DO'^  S^iil ,  is  the  worse  reading.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  many  Sam.  readings.  Gcsenius,  Pent.  Sam.  §  9 — 1 1,  as  in  2  Sam.  xxii. 
11,  5*'^^.],  instead  of  ti^^l  in  Ps.  xviii.  11.  On  the  contrary,  Ps.  xviii.  23, 
"SJa  "T^DSi  is,  perhaps,  an  easier  reading  of  n5:^>3  TnCb^ .  In  the  Samaritan 
and  Alexandrian  reading,  Gen.  xiv.  14,  iP'j'^l,  for  p'^'^^l,  it  remains  un- 
certain whether  the  Jewish  transcriber  put  the  more  common  word  instead 
of  the  una^  leydjuefnv,  or  whether  the  Sam.  and  LXX.,  stimibling  at  tlie 
difficult  sense,  followed  their  own  conjecture.     Gesenius,  1.  c.  p.  64. 

3.  hi  respect  to  construction.  In  Gen.  xli.  56,  the  Sam.  inserts  13  after 
tnS;  Num.  xxxi.  15,  n'c^  occurs  in  the  LXX.;  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  7,  they  read 

I'b ,  instead  of  S*5 ,  to  make  the  passage  more  connected.  Here  belongs  the 
addition  to  Gen.  iv.  8. 

In  Jer.  ii.20,  the  Kethib  mS55«  is  more  difficult  than  the  Keri  'TliSi*;  in 
2  Kings  xix.  13,  the  Kethib  i:^'^^  is  more  difficult  than  i'13 ,  and  therefore 
to  be  preferred. 

"  In  Ps.  xxxvi.  2,  some  MSS.,  and  all  the  versions,  have  ia^ ,  instead  of 
12^ ,  and  yet  this  reading  is  probably  false ;  and  so,  in  Ps.  xxviii.  8,  MSS. 
and  versions  have  l^sb,  which  is  probably  an  easier  reading,  for  i;^?. 
Tlie  maxim  of  De  Rossi  is  false :  Utor  vetustis  interpretibus  et  Samaritano 
textu,  tamquam  lapide  Lydio,  ut  lectionum  pra;stantiam  et  auctoritatem 
dimetiar. 


§  124.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  407 

sition  that  its  books  have  not  been  essentially  altered  or 
falsified  is  confirmed ;  for  by  far  the  greater  part  of 
variants  that  occur  are  only  unimportant  minutiae  ;  there 
are  but  few  which  entirely  alter  the  sense,  and  they  do 
not  essentially  affect  the  matter  of  the  book."]" 

The  masoretic  text,  on  the  whole,  is  a  better  witness 
for  the  true  punctuation  than  that  of  hasty  critics,  or  of 
the  versions,  which  are  often  unskilfully  made.* 

%  124. 

CRITICAL   CONJECTURE. 

After  mature  examination,  if  the  text  give  no  sense, 
or  a  contradictory  sense,"  and  no  witnesses  afford  as- 


"  John,  vol.  i.  p.  496,  sq. 

''  The  following  instances  of  punctuation  show  a  deeper  insight  into  the 
context  and  usage :    Isa.  i.  27,  fT'Sd ,  instead  of  H'^isd ;  v.  13,  ^t\)z  ,  instead 

of  ^.^t:;  xiv.  6,  nno  "'JTi^^  r3?c,  instead  of  rrna  "^ri^a  t^S?2.  Michaelis, 
Or.  Bib.  vol.  xiv. 

There  are  various  opinions  as  to  the  preference  to  be  accorded  to  the 
Spanish,  Italian,  and  Gennan  MSS.  The  rabbins  and  tlie  following  writers 
prefer  the  former :  El.  Levita,  PrEef,  in  Mas.  Ham.  p.  -37  ;  Menahem  de  Lon- 
zano,  Prfef.  ad  Or.  Thora,  in  Brims,  Prsef.  ad  Kennicott,  p.  vi.  viii. ;  Richard 
Simon,  Hist,  crit  V.  T.  p.  121 ;  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  327.  —De  Rossi, 
1.  c.  p.  1.  can.  xvii.,  sqq.,  prefers  the  others  as  unmasoretic. 

'  Without  necessity  Michaelis  gives  a  conjectural  reading  on  Isa.  vi.  8, 
where  i:i  makes  very  good  sense,  (compare  Gen.  i.  26,)  on  Isa.  xxx.  7, 
xlviii.  7,  xlix.,  and  elsewhere.  See  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xviii.  p.  106,  sqq.  Lowlh 
and  Koppe  err  in  this  way,  and  especially  Houbigant.  [Teller  Prsef.  ad  Ken- 
nicott, Diss.  ii.  p.  xl.)  does  the  same,  and  without  necessity,  and,  in  opposition 
to  the  peculiarity  of  the  author's  usage,  rejects  ^ti^  in  Ps.  xxxii.  7.  On 
C:'>2 ,  Ps.  cvii.  3,  see  Muntighe  et  al.,  De  Wetle,  Com.  iiber  die  Ps.  in  loc,  and 
Gesenius,  Lexicon,  sub  voce.  Hitzig  (Begriff  der  Kritik)  conjectures  iT^m 
'ni'n^  aa,  in  Gen.  xxvii.  33,  instead  of  n^^ri';  'T^^'^'2  Qa.  On  the  contrary, 
see  Tuck,  in  loc. 


408  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TEXT.  [^  124. 

sistance  in  the  case,  we  must  have  recourse  to  con- 
jecture." 

Here  the  critic  must  be  governed  by  sound  exegetico- 
critical  and  historico-critical  considerations,*  but  especial- 
ly by  the  peculiarities  of  the  writer  and  the  passage. 
But  a  negative  is  more  certain  than  a  positive  judg- 
ment." Such  considerations  must  lead  to  an  alteration 
of  the  points  when  necessary.''  [Dogmatic  criticism,  says 
Jahn,  ought  never  to  be  tolerated.  The  question  is  not 
what  the  author  ought  to  have  written  touching  this  or 
that  doctrine,  but  what  he  actually  did  write.  "  Noth- 
ing," says  Eichhorn,  "  is  more  difficidt ;  nothing  de- 
mands more  extensive  acquaintance  with  languages  and 
things  ;  nothing  demands  more  acuteness  and  circum- 
spection ;  nothing  a  wider  and  deeper  penetration  into 
the  aim,  spirit,  subject,  and  course  of  a  work,  than  the 
actual  exercise  of  conjectural  criticism  in  general,  and 
in  particular  in  its  application  to  the  Old  Testament, 
where  criticism  is  yet  in  its  infancy. 

"  We  have  a  thick  volume  of  conjectures  on  the  New 


"  For  the  conjectures  C^'^'n'^nD)  of  the  Masorites,  see  above,  §  91.     Cap- 
pellus,  vol,  ii.  p.  1001,  sqq,     [Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  ch.  x.] 
>>  See  above,  §  118—121. 
"  The  conjectural  reading  of  D",  for  D3,  Ex.  xvii.  16,  agrees  with  verse 

15,  and  is  supported  by  the  probable  change  of  3  into  5 .  KbUer  (Con-ection 
of  some  Readings  in  the  O.T.,  in  EichhorrCs  Repert.  vol.  ii.  p.  251)  makes  a 
conjecture  on  Num.  xvi.  1,  which  is  almost  evident.  [He  reads  t3"i'^^KT  pT 
"l^ms"!  p  HI^D  ^  i^<'l^K  ^3:1,  instead  of  tlHT  2!!«'ibN!  "13:1  tilinsi  irn 
"I^IS^^  "^Dn  t\bt}  "^a.]  See  Vater,  in  loc.  On  the  other  side,  Rosenmilller, 
The  conjecture  on  Gen,  xi.  31,  S<?2';;'2,  for  ^Hl?^;'] ,  is  more  happy  than  that 
of  the  Samaritan  text. 

"*  The  alteration  ti'^>2  instead  of  D^Ja ,  Gen.  vii.  6,  is  not  only  unneces- 
sary, but  conflicts  with  the  opinions  of  the  narrator.  Hitzig  (1.  c.  127,  sqq., 
140,  sqq.)  makes  the  lucky  conjecture  in  Gen.  xxvii.,  and  reads  "^^ ,  for  ii . 


^  124.]  CRITICISM    OF    THE    TKXT.  409 

Testament ;  and  now,  after  so  great  an  expenditure  of 
acute  conjectures,  we  know  that  scarce  two  passages  in 
it  seem  to  require  any  alteration  from  conjecture.  The 
line  that  separates  the  narrow  and  uncertain  field  of 
conjectural  criticism  from  the  broad  and  secure  province 
of  sound  criticism,  is  so  thin  that  it  cannot  be  discovered 
with  any  certainty,  until  the  rules  of  special  criticism,  for 
the  writer  in  question,  have  been  thoroughly  investi- 
gated; and  they  can  be  established  onl}'  by  an  acute 
study  of  the  most  perfect  critical  apparatus,  continued 
through  many  years."]" 

•  [Eichhorn,  (§  404,)  Luther,  Osiander,  Brentius,  and  Musculus,  cautious 
and  religious  critics,  did  not  scruple  sometimes  to  resort  to  conjecture.  See 
specimens  of  them,  ibid.     See  Hitzig,  1.  c.  p.  113,  sqq.] 

VOL.  I.  52 


APPENDIX. 


A. 

(See  §  8,  p.  12.) 


CATALOGUE  OP  BOOKS  CITED  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT, 
BUT   NOW  LOST. 

I.  The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah,  \^^r^'^l  Wtin\>l2  150.  Num. 
xxi.  14.  Abarhenel,  in  loc,  refers  it  to  the  time  of  Abraham;  but 
others,  with  no  better  reason,  ascribe  the  book  to  Moses.  Some 
Jewish  writers  think  certain  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  are  referred  to 
under  this  title." 

II.  The  Book  of  Jasher,  that  is,  the  Righteous.  TiT)''!!  ISO.  Josh. 
X.  13,  2  Sam.  i.  18.  This  book  must  have  been  of  no  very  ancient 
date,  for  it  contained  the  Lamentations  of  David  on  the  death  of 
Saul  and  Jonathan.  A  spurious  work  with  this  title  has  come  down 
to  us,  containing  the  history  recorded  in  the  first  seven  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.* 

III.  The  Book  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom.  OpffiJa  ^BD 
'^;!t>r} .     1  Sam.  x.  25. 

IV.  Solomon's  Three  Thousand  Proverbs.  '^iD'a  Q'^&bii!  nffibuJ- 
1  Kings  v.  12.  (iv.  32.) 

V.  Solomon's    Thousand   and  Five  Songs,     sis'!  nffi"?3rT  fi'i'l'^'D. 

"  See  the  Jerusalem  Targura  and  that  of  Jonathan,  in  loc.  For  this  and  the 
following  book,  see  iVoIf,  Bibliotheca  Hebroea,  vol.  ii.  p.  216,  sqq. 

*  1.  The  Book  of  Jasher,  with  notes,  &c. ;  1751,  4to.  2.  The  Book  of  Jasher, 
&c.;  Bristol,  1829,  4to.  '1ffi%n  ^tO,  or  the  Book  of  Jasher,  &c. ;  New  York, 
1840.  See  Christian  Examiner  for  May,  1840.  Home,  1.  c.  Bib.  App.  ch.  iii. 
sect.  i. 


A.]  APPENDIX.  411 

1  Kings  V.  12.  (iv.  32.)     It  has  been  thought  that  a  part  of  these 
are  extant  in  the  Song  of  Solomon. 

VI.  Solomon's  Works  on  Natural  History.  ti'^^J'n  ^5  ;  n>3r|3ri  ^5; 
eirn  ^s ;  ''O'n'-p  b? ,  and  oi^in  ^y .     1  Kings  iv.  33. 

VII.  The  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon.  n?abia  ^^;2'^  1BD. 
1  Kings  xi.  41. 

VIII.  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel,  ^fo 
;S5'iip'^  ''?^^53  C'^ip^n  ^y^]'      1  Kings  xiv.  19,  xvi.  5,  20,  27,  xxii.  39. 

IX.  The  Books  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah. 
1  Kings  XV.  7. 

X.  Chronicles  of  King  David.  'i^Tl  Ij^J^a^  "n  "t  .   1  Ch.  xxvii.  24. 

XI.  XII.  and  XIII.  The  Books  of  Samuel  the  Seer ;  nK"in  "v  ''"CT  • 
of  Nathan  the  Prophet,  i:n:ri  "d  ""n ;  of  Gad  the  Seer,  nfnn  na  "t  . 
1  Ch.  xxix.  29,  2  Ch.  ix.  29.  Perhaps  the  first  of  these  is  the 
present  book  of  Samuel. 

XIV.  and  XV.  The  Prophecy  of  Ahijah,  rT^nx  tiMni;  the 
Visions  oflddo,  rifnn  i'15';  niTTO.     2  Ch.  ix.  29." 

XVI.  The  Book  of  Shemaiah.     rr^S^suJ  ilS'l.     2  Ch.  xii.  15. 

XVII.  The  Book  of  Jehu.     s^^nV."???-     2  Ch.  xxix.  2.* 

XVIII.  An  Historical  Book  of  Isaiah  the  Prophet  is  referred  to 
in  2  Ch.  xxvi.  22. 

XIX.  The  Sayings  of  Hosea.     inn  '^"^^'}-     2  Ch.  xxxiii,  19." 

XX.  The  Lamentations.  niD"'pn.  2  Ch.  xxxv.  2.5.  It  cannot  be 
the  present  book  of  Lamentation,  for  it  contained  an  elegy  on  King 
Josiah,  not  found  in  the  latter.  Some  think  it  the  work  of  the  Jere- 
miah mentioned  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  31. 

Besides  the  above,  some  writers  think  other  books,  not  now  extant, 
are  referred  to  in  the  Old  Testament,  namely,  in  Ex.  xvii.  14,  xxiv. 
7;  Isa.  xxxiv.  16,  xxix.  11  ;   1  Ch.  iv.  22,  and  elsewhere. 

The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Media  and  Persia 
is  mentioned,  Esther  x.  2 ;  but  that  was  not  a  Hebrew  book.  The 
book  of  Enoch  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  Jude,  verses  14, 
15;  but  that  is  still  extant."* 

»  See  1  Kings  xi.  29  ;  2  Ch.  xii.  15,  xiii.  22. 

*  See  Clericus,  in  loc. 

'  In  the  English  Bible,  this  work  is  called  The  Sayings  of  the  Seers;  this  is 
the  reading  of  the  LXX.     See  verse  18. 

•^  The  Book  of  Enoch  the  Prophet, now  first  translated  from  an  iEthi- 

opic  MS by  Richard  lawrence,  &c.;  Oxford,  1821,  2d  ed.;  corrected 


412  J.  APPENDIX.  [B. 


B. 

(See  $24,  p.  83.) 
MEANING   OF  THE  WORDS   CAJVOjy  AND  APOCRYPHA." 

I.  The  word  canon  [y-avm)  had  long  been  in  general  use  among 
the  old  ecclesiastical  writers,  before  it  was  applied  to  a  collection 
of  sacred  writings.* 

1.  With  them  it  often  meant,  in  general,  nothing  but  a  book,  and 
a  catalogue;   or, 

2.  In  particular,  a  catalogue  of  things  tvhich  belonged  to  the 
church;  or,  in  general,  a  book  which  served  for  the  use  of  the  church.' 
Therefore,  a  list  of  odes  which  were  to  be  sung  on  a  feast  day,"^  as 
well  as  the  roll  in  which  were  entered  the  names  of  all  persons 
belonging  to  the  church,  was  called  a  canon." 

3.  The  word  was  used  in  a  much  narrower  sense,  and  applied  to 
a  public  and  approved  catalogue  of  all  the  books  which  tvere  to  be 
read  in  the  public  assemblies  of  Christians,  for  instruction  and 
edification.-^ 

4.  Finally,  in  times  much  later,  it  meant  a  collection  of  divine 
and  inspired  writings ;  and  in  this  latter  sense  almost  all  modern 
scholars  have  taken  the  word.  They,  therefore,  use  canonical  and 
inspired  as  perfectly  synonymous;  though,  by  the  term  canon  of 
the  Old  Testament,  some  understand  "  the  collection  of  holy  and 
inspired  writings  which  Christ  and  the  apostles  have  declared  holy 
and  inspired." 

II.  The  apocryphal  are  opposed  to  the  canonical  books. 

1.  At  first,  books  written  in  an  obscure  style  were  called  apoc- 


and  enlarged,  1833,  8vo.     Hoffmann,   Das  Buch  Henoch,  &c. ;   Jena,  1833— 
1838,  2  vols.  8vo.     For  a  full  account  of  the  various  opinions  respecting  the  lost 
books,  see  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  211—216. 
"  This  article  is  from  Eichhorn,  §  16—18. 

*  See  Suidus,  sub  voce  Kav^v  and  Kav6viov.     F.  F.  Driik,  Diss,  de  Ratione 
Hist.  Can.  BcribendcB ;  Tub.  1778,  4to. 

'  Synod.  Laod.  can.  42. 

^  Suicer,  Thesaurus  eccles.  vol.  ii.  p.  40,  sqq.,  and  the  authorities  he  cites. 
Socrates,  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  i.  ch.  17. 

•  Du  Fresne,  Glossarium  Med.  et  infimae  Grseoitatis,  p.  579. 

f  Suicer,  1.  c.     CoUa,  Apud  Gerhard,  Locos  Theol.  vol.  ii.  p.  244. 


B.]  APPENDIX.  M^ 

ryphal. "  These  writings  were  considered  above  the  comprehension 
of  the  common  man  ;  and  the  overseers  of  the  church  forbade  that 
they  should  be  read  in  the  public  assemblies  of  Christians,  though 
they  were  not  only  not  forbidden  to  the  teachers,  but  it  was  their 
duty  to  study  them  diligently. 

2.  Therefore,  under  the  name  apocryphal,  in  opposition  to  canon- 
ical, such  books  were  designated  as  were  laid  aside,  and  from  which 
nothing  loas  to  he  read  in  public} 

3.  Even  spurious  writings  (pseudepigrapha)  were  sometimes 
called  apocryphal,  for  similar  reasons,  because  no  public  use  could 
be  made  of  such  miserable  productions  as  the  Book  of  Adam,  Me- 
thuselah, Enoch,  and  others  like  them/ 

4.  Finally,  as  canonical  and  inspired  were  deemed  synonymous, 
so  a  book  not  inspired  was  called  apocryphal.  But  the  use  of  the 
word  in  this  sense  began  very  late,  and,  perhaps,  not  before  the 
time  of  Jerome. 

Under  the  term  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  if  we  understand 
the  collection  of  divine  and  inspired  loritings  of  the  Jeics  from  times 
before  the  birth  of  Christ,  then  we  give  it  a  meaning  which  most 
Christian  writers  never  thought  of;  and  numerous  difficulties  oppose 
the  inquirer,  who  consults  the  Fathers  respecting  the  canon  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  book  of  Tobit  and  Judith,  the  two  books  of 
Maccabees,  and  the  five  books  of  Solomon,  and  others,  are  found 
included  among  the  canonical  Scriptures/  Frightened  at  this  ap- 
pearance, he  either  gives  up  the  investigation,  or,  if  he  is  earnest 
enough  to  continue  it,  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  our  canon  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  of  recent  origin,  and  was  not  determined  in 
ancient  times,  in  all  its  great  and  little  parts." 

If  we  understand,  by  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  books 
of  the  Jews  from  times  before  Christ,  which  might  be  read  in  public, 


"  Suidas,  sub  voce  <J>EgfKt)5t;j.  Epiphanivs,  Hseres.  lib.  i.  Druk,  I.  c.  p.  8. — 
Semler  (Untersuch  des  Kanons,  vol.  i.  p.  10)  says  that  sometimes  a  book  was 
called  apocryphal  which  was  allowed  only  to  the  practised  Christian. 

'  Ruffinits,  Expos.  Symb.  in  Opp.  Cypriani,  p.  26.  Cyril,  Catechet.  iv.  p. 
68,  ed.  Toutt.     Here  apocryphal  agrees  with  the  rabbinical  word  f^Da  .     See  Hot- 

tinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  521.     Castelli's  and  Buxtorfs  Lexicons,  sub  voce. 

'  Mhanasius,  Synops.  vol.  ii.  p.  154.  Fabricius,  Codex  Pseudepigraphus 
V.  T.  vol.  ii.  p.  308. 

*  Concil.  Carthag.  can.  47,  A.  C.  397.  '  Semler,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  14. 


414  APPENDIX.  [b. 

this  meaning  will  not  apply  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  not  ad- 
missible. By  whom  should  the  reading  of  these  works  be  permitted  ? 
By  Jews,  or  Christians?  By  the  Jews]  Nothing  was  more  uncer- 
tain than  the  number  of  books  to  be  held  canonical ;  for  they  did 
not  consider  the  canonical  books  synonymous  with  those  to  be  read. 
The  Song  of  Solomon  was  to  them  a  sacred  national  writing ;  and 
yet  they  were  forbidden  to  make  a  public  use  of  it  in  their  syna- 
gogues." In  general,  with  this  meaning  of  the  term,  we  could  only 
include  in  the  canon  the  five  books  of  Moses,  the  Prophets,  and  the 
book  of  Esther,  —  which  was  read,  with  many  solemnities,  at  the 
feast  of  Purim.  The  Psalms,  the  Proverbs,  Job,  and  the  historical 
books,  would  be  excluded  !  Shall  we  take  those  read  by  Christians  ? 
Then  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  would  be, still  more  uncer- 
tain. The  canon  was  determined  at  a  time  when  it  was  not  known 
what  books  were  to  be  held  canonical,  for  that  was  not  settled  till 
after  the  first  century  from  the  birth  of  Christ ;  by  a  party,  from 
whom  no  certain  determination  of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  to  be  expected  ;  and  without  any  established  principles  by  which 
the  value  of  the  book  could  be  tried,  for  the  New  Testament  gave 
no  decision  of  that  question.  The  selection  depended  merely  on 
caprice,  and  was,  perhaps,  determined  by  pious  considerations, — 
which  were  often  very  doubtful,  —  or  by  authorities  wholly  inadequate. 
Finally,  if  we  compare  the  catalogues,  still  e.Uant,  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  it  is  permitted  to  read  publicly  among 
Christians,  Judith,  Tobit,  and  other  books,  are  introduced,  which, 
for  various  reasons,  can  have  no  canonical  value.  So  unstable  is 
the  ground  on  which  the  important  subject  of  inquiry,  the  canon  of 
the  Old  Testament,  is  commonly  based ! 

"  Origcn,,  Prisf.  ad  Cant.  Cant. 


c] 


APPENDIX. 


416 


•j,  M  53   "^ 

era  ^  »  o 

g  o  =    3 

5'  3  •     - 


era 


>CKnn>os 
3   3  "H.  g  ':^   g:  2.  IT 


m  "o,  era  "o 


a  =  2 


» 


2.  r 


c 


ID 
;0 

3 

i 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

—    ^    — 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

•^ 

P 

p 

CO 

OS 

i 

b3 

p 

3 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

>         h-       ►-  K- 


■  —      o 

G 

K-    —    —    «t-    —    —    —    >-  —  H 

-  !  I i"^    :^   % 

^ ^1  s 

o %     -t       " 

""  ^  T     « 

S   ■ 5   -^  •    O 

S    „„^^^^^^^"     I    ^^ 

f,  2  —  w  '^ 

O      o      _*  ^ 

a  a  * 

»  »  -^     ^ 

a  a    '^      r 

•    •    —      o 

^^^^^^^,-.^      J*      H 

—  —    —    —    W4    W-    —    —    —  _.  " 

* _;        H 


I      I 

TT 
I  I 
I  I 

Li 


Alexandrian  > 
Version,     J    ' 

Philo,    .... 

JMew  Testament, 

> 

H 
X 

H 

ShibjDATE. 

*       * 

Pentateucli. 

-     ^         ^ 

losliuii. 

I         -         - 

Jud^'fis. 

-      1            - 

Rutli. 

"* 

S.iniuel. 

-     -         - 

Kings. 

-      1           ^ 

Chronicles. 

1        ^         ^ 

Ezra. 

1         1           - 

Nelieniiali. 

1         1           - 

Esther. 

«       «            H- 

Job. 

* 

Psalms. 

* 

Proverbs 

1            1               - 

(Jantitles. 

1            1               - 

Ecclesiastes. 

^       --            ^ 

Isaiah. 

^       .-            H- 

Jerenii^ih. 

-         1               -          i 

Lamentations 

-        1               -           1 

Ezekiel. 

-       ^            ^          1 

XI r.  Proph. 

-         1               -          1 

Daniel. 

1            1               -          1 

E..I,.... 

1            1               -          1 

Pobit. 

1            1               -          1 

Judith. 

1            1               -          1 

Esther. 

1            1               -          1 

Wisd.  ofSol. 

1            1               -          1 

Ecclesiastic. 

1            1               -           1 

3aruch. 

1            1               -          1 

Song  of  3  Ch. 

1            1               -          1 

Susannah. 

1            1               -          1 

Jel  and  Drag. 

■III 

Prayer  of  Ma. 

1            1               >^          1 

and  2  Mace. 

1            I               -          |: 

)  Mace. 

n 
o 


C/2 


l> 

o 

2.> 

fi  (—1 

"•  X 
S  ?: 


HO 


s  —  w  c/: 


a.  CO 

I  S3 

•  c 


n 

n 

5  2 

> 


416  APPENDIX.  [C. 

WOTES  ON  THE  PRECEDING  TABLE. 

THE    ALEXANDRIAN    VERSION. 

The  Prayer,  or  Song,  of  the  Three  Children  is  added  to  the  third 
chapter  of  the  book  of  Daniel ;  the  History  of  Susannah,  and  that 
of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  form  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  of  the 
same  book.  A  third  book  of  Maccabees  is  added  in  the  Alexan- 
drian and  Vatican  manuscripts;  and  di  fourth  book  of  the  Macca- 
bees is  also  contained  in  some  old  manuscripts.  Neither  of  these 
two  last  has  found  a  place  among  the  apocryphal  books  of  the 
English  Bible." 

PHILO. 

Philo  flourished  about  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  It 
is  only  through  him  that  we  can  learn  what  books  composed  the 
canon  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews.  He  does  not  give  a  detailed  cata- 
logue of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  any  part  of  his  works  ; 
but,  here  and  there,  in  his  writings,  sentences  occur,  from  which 
we  may  gather  his  opinions  respecting  them,  and,  perhaps,  those 
of  his  countrymen  at  Alexandria.  He  was  acquainted  with  the 
apocryphal  writings,  and  sometimes  borrows  an  expression  from 
them,  but  never  quotes  them  for  arguments  to  substantiate  a  doc- 
trine. Horneman''  divides  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  into 
three  classes,  according  to  the  rank  Philo  seems  to  have  assigned 
them,  namely : 

1.  Books  referred  to,  with  the  express  declaration  that  they  are 
of  divine  origin.  They  are  marked  with  an  asterisk  in  the  pre- 
ceding table. 

2.  Books  which  he  barely  cites,  marked  1  in  table. 

3.  Books  which  he  does  not  mention,  marked  —  in  the  table. 
Philo  calls  writings   of  the  first  class,  "works  of  the  prophets," 


For  further  particulars  respecting  the  apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel  in  the 
LXX.,  see  below,  vol.  ii.  §  259. 

*  Observationes  ad  illust.  Doctrinee  de  Canone  V.  T.  ex  Philone,  cited  in  Eich- 
hom,  §  26. 


C]  APPENDIX.  in 

"  inspired  writings,"  and  other  similar  titles.  He  supposes  these 
prophets  were  merely  interpreters  of  God,  who,  in  their  moments 
of  inspiration,  had  neither  will  nor  self-consciousness ;  they  were 
not  persons,  but  instruments  in  the  hands  of  the  Almighty.  The 
passages  in  which  he  mentions  the  books  of  the  first  and  second 
class,  are  given  in  the  note."  He  does  not  mention  Nehemiah, 
Ruth,  Esther,  Chronicles,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  the  Lamentation  of 
Jeremiah,  Ecclesiastes,  or  the  Song  of  Solomon.  But  Nehemiah 
may  have  been  considered  as  a  part  of  Ezra;  Ruth,  of  Judges; 
and  the  Lamentation  as  belonging  to  the  Prophecies  of  Jeremiah. 
The  twelve  Minor  Prophets  were  probably  considered  as  one  book ; 
and  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  were  probably  regarded  as  one 
work,  in  four  parts.  But,  since  Philo  nowhere  professes  to  furnish 
us  with  a  list  of  the  sacred  books,  his  omission  of  a  book  furnishes 
no  objection  whatever  to  its  admission  into  the  canon. 

THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  New  Testament  affords  us  no  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books. 
Some  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  frequently  cited  ;  but  others 
are  not  once  referred  to.  Those  marked  with  an  asterisk,  in  the 
table,  are  thought  by  some  to  be  cited  as  p-oofs  of  religious  truth ; 
the  others  to  be  referred  to  merely  for  illustration.  But  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  New  Testament  makes  such  a  distinction. 

Six  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  never  referred  to  in  the 
New  Testament,  namely.  Judges,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Esther, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah.     The  fact  that  a  book  is  cited  in  the  New 

"  He  calls  Moses  nqocpi'jrrig,  and  [eQO(pavrt;g,  Opp.  ed.  Mangey,  vol.  ii.  p.  66, 
117, 121.  He  calls  his  writings  7TQO(fit]rixov  Xoyov,  or  ttqag  (il^Xov?,  vol.  i.  p.  347 
— 543,  ii.  p.  163.  Similar  appellations  are  bestowed  on  Genesis,  vol.  i.  p.  18, 
Exodus,  p.  438,  Leviticus,  p.  85,  JVumbers,  p.  273,  Deuteronomy,  p.  657.  The  book 
of  Joshua  is  called  Xoyiov  tou  'iXtut  &cov,  p.  430.  The  First  of  Samuel  is  called 
itQog  Xoyog,  p.  379.  Ezra  is  called  [tQoifavT>'i-9cig,  p.  427.  He  calls  Isaiah  and 
Jeremiah  prophets,  p.  604,  681,  411,  147,  &c.  He  mentions  but  two  of  the 
minor  prophets,  viz.  Hosea,  p.  350,  599,  and  Zachariah,  p.  414,  but  both  with  the 
usual  marks  of  approbation.  He  usually  cites  the  Psalms  without  ascribing  a 
divine  origin  to  them.  But  he  calls  David  a  prophet,  a  prophetic  or  inspired 
man,  and  speaks  of  Solomon,  as  author  of  Proverbs,  in  similar  terms.  Judges, 
Job,  and  the  First  Book  of  Kings,  are  cited  without  any  mark  of  peculiar  venera- 
tion.    See  Eichhorn,  §  25 — 33. 

VOL.  I.  53 


418  APPENDIX.  [C. 

Testament,  proves  merely  that  it  was  regarded  with  respect  by  the 
Jews ;  or,  at  least,  that  it  was  toell  Icnoicn  at  the  time.  It  will 
by  no  means  support  the  conclusion  that  it  was  supposed  to  be 
miraculously  inspired,  or  to  contain  a  standard  of  religious  and 
moral  doctrine. 

The  apocryphal  books  are  not  cited  in  the  New  Testament, 
though  allusions  are  made  to  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus."  Some 
apocryphal  books  are  alluded  to  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  vs.  14, 
and  2  Tim.  iii.  8 ;  and  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to  quote  Greek 
authors,  when  he  speaks  to  those  who  were  familiar  with  them, — 
as  he  quotes  Jewish  authors  to  the  Jews. 

CHAP.  I. CATALOGUES  OF  THE  BOOKS  IN  THE  CANON. 

Josephus. 

Josephus  furnishes  us  the  oldest  catalogue,  now  extant,  of  all 
the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  celebrated  passage  trans- 
lated above,  §  15.  In  the  table,  the  books  marked  with  an  asterisk 
are  such  as  have  divine  authority  ascribed  to  them  by  Josephus. 
Those  marked  with  an  obelisk  (t)  are  inserted  in  his  catalogue,  but 
are  never  quoted  in  his  icritings.  In  the  passage  referred  to,'  he 
does  not  merely  give  his  own  opinion  upon  the  canon,  or  the  books 
he  supposed  it  to  contain,  but  the  common  opinion  of  his  country- 
men. In  compiling  the  table,  I  have  not  only  referred  to  this 
passage  containiag  the  list  of  canonical  books,  but  to  various  por- 
tions of  his  writings,  where  he  has  incidentally  spoken  of  them. 

In  his  list  of  books,  he  reckons,  as  canonical,  all  the  writings 
composed  before  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  who  died  424 
before  Christ.  Why  did  he  fix  this  period  as  the  limit  of  the  com- 
position of  the  canon  ?  Eichhorn  acutely  answers  the  question,  — 
Josephus  supposed  the  book  of  Esther  to  be  the  latest  of  all  the 


*  Compare  Ecclus.  xxiv.  17  and  John  xv.  1. 

19         Matt.  xi.  28. 

9  John  i.  1. 

21         iv.  13,  14,  vi. 

Paul,  it  is  evident,  was  acquainted  with  this  book. 

*•  Cont.  Apion,  i.  §  8. 


C]  APPENDIX.  419 

books.  This  he  places  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes.  If  the  book 
of  Malachi  was  written  later,  Josephus  was  ignorant  of  the  fact. 
His  error,  then,  consists  in  placing  Esther,  instead  of  Malachi,  at 
the  end  of  the  canon.  We,  therefore,  are  justified  in  placing  any 
of  our  present  canonical  books  in  the  catalogue  of  Josephus. 

He  calls  these  books,  "  works  of  the  prophets,"  "  sacred  writings," 
&.C.,  and  grounds  their  authority  on  the  fact  that  they  were  written 
by  prophets.  He  receives  all  our  present  canonical  books,  but 
rejects  the  later  writings,  because  they  were  not  written  by  prophets. 
Every  sacred  book,  therefore,  with  which  he  was  acquainted,  and 
which  he  believed  to  have  been  written  by  a  prophet,  (before  the 
time  of  Artaxerxes,)  received  a  place  in  the  canon.  All  others 
were  excluded.  And  since  there  were  no  prophets  after  the  time 
of  Artaxerxes,  (excepting  Malachi,  whom  he.  places  earlier,)  he 
mentions  no  books,  in  his  canon,  of  a  later  date. 

Now,  leaving  his  systematic  catalogue,  and  examining  his  works 
at  large,  it  appears  that  he  classes  some  books  expressly  among  the 
sacred  icritings,  mentions  others  icithout  ascribing  to  them  any 
authority,   and  ornits  others  altogether. 

I.  The  following  belong  to  the  first  class:"  — 

1.  The  Pentateuch ;         .5.  Isaiah ;  9.  Jonah ; 

2.  Joshua;  6.  Jeremiah;  10.  Nahum ; 

3.  Kings;  7.  Ezekiel ;  11.  Haggai; 

4.  Psalms ;  8.  Daniel ;  12.  Zachariah. 

II.  To  the  second  belong  the  following  books  :  *  — 

1.  Lamentations;  4.  Chronicles; 

2.  Judges  and  Ruth  ;  5.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ; 

3.  Samuel ;  6.  Esther. 

III.  The  following  belong  to  the  third  class:  — 

1.  Proverbs;  3.  Ecclesiastes ; 

2.  Canticles;  4.  Job. 


'^  (1.)  See  Preface,  §  4.  Ant.  iii.  c.  5,  §  2;  iv.  c.  8,  §  48;  ix.  c.  2,  §  2. 
(2.)  Ant.  V.  c.l,  §  17.  (3.)  Ant.  ix.c.2,  §2.  (4.)  Ant.  vii.  c.  12,  §  3.  (5.)  Ant. 
xi.  c.  1,  §  2.  (6.)  Ant.  X.  c.  5,  §  1.  (7.)  Ant.  x.  c.  8,  §  2.  (8.)  Ant.  x.  c.  10, 
§  4,  and  c.  ,11,  §7.  (9.)  Ant.  x.  c.  2,  §  2,  ad  fin.,  (here  he  classes  all  the 
twelve  Minor  Prophets  together,  and  ranks  them  with  Isaiah,)  and  Ant.  ix. 
c.  10,  §  1,  2.  (10.)  Ant.  ix.  c.  11,  §  3.  See  miiston's  note.  (11  and  12.)  Ant. 
xi.  c.  4,  §  5. 

*  (1.)  Ant.  X.  c.  5,  §  1.  Compare  v.  c.  1  with  the  book  of  Joshua.  (2.)  And 
V.  c.  2 — 8  with  Judges.  (3.)  Compare  v.  c.  9 — vii.  with  the  books  of  Samuel. 
(4.)  Ant.  viii.  c.  12,  §  4.     Compare  2  Ch.  .xiv.  8.     (5.)  Ant.  xi.  5,  §  1, 2,  8.     But 


420  APPENDIX.  [G. 

Josephus  does  not  quote  any  one  of  these  four  books.  This 
fact  is  easily  explained.  He  wrote  a  history  of  the  Hebrew  na- 
tion, not  of  its  literature;  and,  as  these  are  not  historical  books, 
he  could  write  a  history  without  quoting  them.  The  book  of  Job 
was  well  known  at  that  time,  for  it  is  quoted  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  by  Philo.  Josephus,  doubtless,  included  it  among  the 
thirteen  prophetic  books." 


<^  5. 


CHAP.    II. CHRISTIAN    CATALOGUES    OF    THE    BOOKS    IN    THE 

CANON    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 

I.       CANON    OF    THE    WRITERS    OF    THE    GREEK    CHURCH. 

The  apostolical  Fathers  were  mostly  ignorant  of  the  original  lan- 
guage of  the  Hebrew  canon ;  therefore,  in  studying  the  Old  Testament, 
they  were  obliged  to  make  use  of  a  translation.  The  Alexandrian 
version  was  generally  used.  And  since  that  contains  books  not 
found  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  it  is  not  strange  to  find  these  writers 
quoting  indifferently  the  apocryphal  and  the  canonical  books. 

Barnabas  and  Hermas,  and,  still  later,  Irena^us  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  cite  the  apocryphal  writings,  ascribing  to  them  the  same 
authority  as  to  the  canonical  books.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  in 
a  man  so  learned  as  Clement  of  Alexandria.* 

1.     Canon  of  Melito. 

Melito  is  the  first  Christian  writer  who  gives  us  a  catalogue  of  the 
"  universally  acknowledged  Scriptures  "  of  the  Old  Testament,  says 
Eusebius,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  this  valuable  document.'  He 
took  it  from  the  writings  of  Melito  himself.     From  his  account,  it 

he  draws  also  from  the  apocryphal  Ezra.  Compare  xi.  c.  3,  §  2—8,  with  1  Esd.  iii. 
iv.  See  Whiston's  note  on  this  passage.  (6.)  Compare  xi.  c.  6  with  the  canonical 
book  of  Esther,  which  Whiston  thinks  J.  never  saw.     Note  on  Cent.  Ap.  i.  §  8. 

"  See  above,  §  15,  and  Elchhorn,  §  40—50.  See,  on  the  other  hand,  Dr. 
Palfrey  s  Academical  Lectures,  vol.  i.  p.  25,  sqq. 

''  See  above,  §  25. 

'  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  c.  2G.     See  §  25,  above. 


C]  APPENDIX.  421 

appears  the  canon  was  not  then  settled  among  the  Christians;  for 
had  this  been  the  case,  it  would  not  have  been  necessary  for  Onesi- 
mus  to  write  to  Melito  to  ascertain  the  number  of  books  deemed 
divine,  or  inspired ;  and  still  less  would  it  be  requisite  for  the  bishop 
himself  to  journey  to  Palestine  to  make  inquiries  upon  this  subject. 

Melito's  list  contains  only  the  books  received  in  the  churches  of 
Palestine ;  therefore  we  cannot  conclude  from  it  that  these  books, 
and  these  only,  were  received  in  all  the  other  churches.  The  book 
of  Esther,  Nehemiah,  and  Lamentations,  are  not  named  in  it.  But 
the  two  latter  were  doubtless  included  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and 
Jeremiah.  Eichhorn,  as  it  has  already  been  said,  thinks  Esther  was 
likewise  included  with  Ezra,  but  his  arguments  are  not  satisfactory." 
From  this  epistle  we  learn  that  there  was  no  well-known  canon  of 
Scripture  acknowledged  in  his  time.*  He  admits  none  of  the  apocry- 
phal, and  all  of  the  present  canonical  books,  with  the  single  and  doubt- 
ful exception  of  Esther.  This  is  marked  with  an  asterisk  in  the 
table,  as  doubtful. 

2.    Canon  of  Origen. 

The  next  list  that  has  come  down  to  us  is  from  the  celebrated 
Origen.  This,  also,  is  preserved  by  Eusebius.'  Origen  formed  it,  as 
he  says,  from  the  testimony  of  the  Jews.  He  not  only  does  not  admit 
all  the  apocryphal  books,  but  expressly  excludes  some  of  them, 
namely,  the  books  of  Maccabees. "^  The  omission  of  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets,  in  this  catalogue,  is  satisfactorily  explained  as  an  accidental 
omission  of  the  transcriber.  But  it  is  more  difficult  to  account  for 
the  admission  of  Baruch  to  a  place  in  the  canon.  Perhaps  the  fol- 
lowing is  the  most  satisfactory  solution  :   The  Jew,  or  Jews,  whom  he 


"  On  this  catalogue,  see  Lardner,  vol.  ii.  ch.  15.  Munscher,  Handbuch  der 
Dogmengeschichte,  vol.  i.  §  26.     Palfrey's  Acad.  Lect.  vol.  i.  p.  32,  sqq. 

'  Schmid,  in  his  Hist,  et  Vindic.  Canonis,  (cited  by  Eichhorn,  §  52,)  maintains 
that  Estlier  is  omitted  by  a  mistake  of  the  transcriber.  But  he  is  supported  by 
few  arti-uments.  It  might  be  omitted  from  the  Christian  canon  at  that  period, 
for  the  book  is  not  very  edifying  in  a  religious  point  of  view.  Afterwards,  when 
the  principles  on  which  the  Jewish  canon  was  based,  were  better  understood,  the 
book  was  restored  to  its  place. 

'  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  25.     See  above,  §  25. 

<*  "E'iui  Si  Tou'riur  tort  Tut  Max/.a^aixa,  r..  r.  )..  But  see  Palfrey,  1.  c.  lect.  ii. 
p.  35. 


422  APPENDIX.  [C. 

relied  in  for  his  authority,  may  have  had  a  high  esteem  for  the  book, 
and  at  their  suggestion,  strengthened  by  the  authority  of  the  Alex- 
andrian version,  he  gave  it  its  present  place  in  his  canon." 

Miinscher  concludes  the  Palestine  Jews  used  the  original  He- 
brew text,  and  the  Hellenistic  Jews  the  Alexandrian  version.  The 
latter  included  more  books  than  the  former.  But,  even  among  the 
Palestine  Jews,  doubts  prevailed  upon  the  books  of  Baruch  and  Es- 
ther, which  were  finally  settled  in  favor  of  the  latter,  and  against  the 
former.  Now,  the  difference  between  the  Palestine  and  the  Hellenis- 
tic canon  gradually  diminished  ;  the  old  Palestine  canon  was  restored. 
All  the  Christians  agreed  in  receiving  all  the  present  canonical  books, 
with  the  single  exception  of  Esther,  (and  it  is  doubtful  if  this  was 
rejected;)  but  they  differed  in  admitting  or  rejecting  some  of  the 
apocryphal  writings — for  example,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  of  Jesus 
the  Son  of  Sirach,  &c.,  which  some  accepted,  and  others  refused  to 
admit.  The  church  and  its  most  distinguished  teachers  were  favora- 
ble to  these  books.  Ignorance  of  the  true  Hebrew  canon,  and  rev- 
erence for  the  Alexandrian  version,  favored  them.  Therefore  most 
of  the  writers  of  this  period  make  use  of  these  and  other  apocryphal 
books.  Yet,  even  then,  some  critics  were  found,  like  Origen  and 
Melito,  who  made  a  careful  investigation  of  the  subject,  and  consult- 
ed the  Jews,  the  only  authorities  in  the  matter,  and  adhered  to  the 
old  Jewish  canon.  But  their  labors  seem  to  have  exerted  but  little 
influence  on  their  contemporaries ;  for,  after  the  time  of  Origen,  we 
find  a  difference  between  the  canon  of  the  Greek  and  that  of  the 
western  church.  Origen's  Hexapla  showed  to  all  scholars  what 
books  were  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  and  what  were  originally 
written  in  Greek.  The  writers  of  the  Grcelc  clmrch  uniformly  re- 
jected the  latter  from  the  canon.  This  is  evident  from  the  writings 
of  Eusebius,  and  the  catalogues  of  Athanasius,  Gregory,  and  Epipha- 
nius.  In  the  west,  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  and  Jerome,  both  students 
of  Origen's  writings,  were  likewise  of  this  opinion.  Others  of  the 
western  church  were  ignorant  of  his  works,  especially  of  the  Hex- 
apla, and  therefore  continued  to  use  all  the  books  contained  in  the 
Alexandrian  version. 


"  Redepennig  (Origenes,  eine  Darstellung  seiner  Lebens  und  seine  Lehre, 
Bonn,  1841,  vol.  i.  p.  232,  sqq.)  thinks  Origen  never  made  a  very  sharp  dis- 
tinction between  the  canonical  and  apocnjpkal.  It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  he 
quotes  the  apocryphal  books  as  authorities,  or  that  he  distinguishes  them  from 
those  esteemed  sacred  by  the  Hebrews.     Sec  above,  §  25,  p.  00,  sqo. 


C]  APPENDIX.  423 

3.     Canon  of  Athanasius. 

Athanasius  was  bishop  of  Alexandria  from  326  to  373.  He  is 
called  the  father  of  orthodoxy.  His  opinion,  therefore,  is  important. 
His  catalogue,  inserted  in  the  table,  is  found  in  a  fragment  of  what 
is  called  a  festal  epistle,  in  vol.  i.  p.  961  of  the  Benedictine  edition 
of  his  works.  He  acknowledges  all  the  canonical  books  except  the 
book  of  Esther. 

He  makes  three  classes  of  writings. 

1.  The  canonical.  In  this  class  he  places  all  of  our  canonical 
writings  except  the  book  of  Esther,  and  adds  the  book  of  JBaruch, 
and  the  Epistle,  to  the  Prophecies  of  Jeremiah. 

2.  Those  which  are  known,  but  not  admitted  to  the  canon.  They 
are  marked  with  an  asterisk  in  the  table. 

3.  Apocryphal  loritings,  which  are  the  invention  of  heretics,  who 
wrote  them  according  to  their  own  caprice."  The  Synopsis  of 
Sacred  Scripture,  attributed  to  him,  and  contained  in  the  Benedictine 
edition  of  his  works,'  is  undoubtedly  spurious,  and  therefore  it  is  not 
noticed  in  the  table ;  but  it  agrees  in  the  main  with  the  festal  epistle. 

4.     Canon  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 

Cyril  was  born,  according  to  Lardner,  about  315,  ordained  pres- 
byter in  344  or  345,  and  bishop  in  350  or  351,  and  died  in  386. 
The  catechetical  discourses  from  which  this  table  is  compiled,  says 
Jerome,  were  written  in  his  youth,  while  he  was  a  presbyter,  that  is, 
about  347  or  348.  His  catalogue  differs  from  that  of  Athanasius  in 
admitting  the  book  of  Esther." 

<§.  10. 

5.     Canon  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea. 

Lardner  says  the  date  of  this  council  is  not  certain.  Some  place 
it  before  the  council  of  Nice ;  others  between  341  and  381.  The 
catalogue  is  contained  in  the  fifty-ninth  and  sixtieth,  or  fifty-eighth 

"  See  the  remarks  of  Lardner,  pt.  ii.  ch.  75,  and  of  MuTiscker,  I.e.  vol.  iii.  §  20. 
*  0pp.  vol.  ii.  p.  126—204.  '  See  §  26,  sup.  p.  97,  sqq. 


424  APPENDIX.  [C. 

and  fifty-ninth  canons.  It  is  generally  received  as  genuine,  though  it 
is  not  free  from  all  doubts.  The  council  consisted  of  only  thirty  or 
forty  bishops  from  Lydia  and  the  neighboring  countries.  It  does  not 
differ  from  the  canon  of  Cyril." 

<§,  11. 

6.     Canon  of  Epiplianius. 

Epiphanius  was  chosen  bishop  of  Constantia,  the  capital  of  Cyprus, 
in  367  or  368.  In  his  works  there  are  three  catalogues  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.*  He  enumerates  twenty-seven  books, 
which  he  reduces  to  twenty-two.  In  one  place  he  says,  the  Epistle 
of  Baruch  was  not  received  by  the  Jews;"  but  again  he  mentions  it 
Avith  the  Prophecies  and  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah."^  The  Wisdom 
of  Solomon  and  of  Sirach  are  called  "  useful  books,"  but  he  does 
not  rank  them  with  the  others. 

-^  12. 

7.     Canon  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzen. 

Gregory  was  born  about  326,  and  died  about  389  or  391.  His 
catalogue  is  found  in  his  poems.'  He  warns  his  readers  against 
apocryphal  writings.  He  enumerates  none  of  our  apocryphal  books 
in  his  canon,  and  omits  the  book  of  Esther.  The  Lamentations,  it 
is  probable,  are  included  with  the  Prophecies  of  Jeremiah. 

^  13. 

8.     Canon  of  Amphilochius. 

Amphilochius  was  bishop  of  Iconium  from  370  to  391,  though 
these  dates  are  uncertain.  The  catalogue  is  found  in  an  Iambic 
poem  addressed  to  Seleucus.  Some  writers  —  and  De  Wette  seems 
of  the  number  —  attribute  it  to  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  ;  but  their  argu- 


«  See  the  passage  in  §  26,  sup.  p.  94,  sqq. 

»  Pond,  et  Mens.  §  4,  Opp.  ii.  p.  161,  sqq.,  and  §  23,  and  the  Panarium, 
vol.  i.  p.  19. 

'  Vol.  ii.  p.  163,  A.  d  Vol.  i.  p.  19. 

*  Carm.  xxxiii.  Opp.  vol.  ii.  p.  98,  ed.  Colon.  Lardner  refers  to  the  most 
valuable  literature  which  relates  to  him  and  his  works. 


C.J  APPENDIX.  425 

ments  are  not  satisfactory."  He  differs  from  Gregory  iii  mentioning 
the  hook  of  Esther,  though  he  gives  it  but  a  qualified  admission  — 
*'  to  these  some  add  Esther." 


^  14. 

9.     Canon  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions. 

The  genuineness  of  this  work  cannot  be  defended.'  If  this  is  the 
same  cited  by  Epiphanius/  which  is  very  doubtful,  then  it  must  be 
referred  to  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  But  writers,  not 
without  good  reason,  refer  it  to  the  fifth.'' 

Besides  the  canonical  books,  the  eighty-fifth  canon  enumerates  the 
three  books  of  Maccabees  and  the  book  of  Judith.  This  latter, 
however,  is  wanting  in  some  manuscripts.  The  book  of  Ecclesiasti- 
cus  is  not  admitted.  If  this  canon  was  written  in  the  fourth  century, 
it  seems  to  have  had  but  little  influence  at  the  time ;  for  none  of  the 
Christian  writers  on  the  canon  ever  refer  to  it.  Epiphanius,  indeed, 
says  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Apostles,  "  All  the  order  of  the  canon 
is  preserved  in  it.'"  But  he  would  not  be  willing  to  say  this  of  a 
work  admitting  Judith  and  the  Maccabees  to  a  place  in  the  canon. 


<^  15 

RESULTS. 

Such  is  the  canon  of  the  Greek  church  at  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century.  The  churches  uniformly  received,  the  twenty-two  canonical 
books  of  the  Hebrews,  that  is,  all  of  our  present  canonical  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Some,  however,  rejected  the  book  of  Esther, 
7chile  others  admitted  the  book  of  Baruch  and  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah 

«  See  the  arguments  on  both  sides  in  Lardner,  1.  c.  pt.  ii.  ch.  99.  The  poem 
may  be  found  in  the  Monumenta  Grseca,  ed.  Cotelerius,  torn.  ii.  99 — 104,  and  in 
Gregory's  Opp.  vol.  ii.  p.  194,  ed.  Colon. 

*  See  the  work  in  Mansi,  Cone.  Patr.  vol.  i.  p.  47,  and  in  Cotelerius,  Patr. 
Apost.  vol.  i.  p.  448. 

'  Haeres.   Ixx.   No.  10,  p.  822,  823,   ed.   Petavitts.     Given  also  in    Grabcj 
Spicilegium,  vol.  i.  p.  46 — 55. 
<^  See  Lardner,  pt.  ii.  ch.  85. 

•  Opp.  p.  822,  ed.  Petavius. 

I  have  inserted  it  in  the  table  to  show  the  striking  difference  between  later 
catalogues  and  those  prepared  by  the  emment  scholars  of  the  Greek  church  in 
the  fourth  century. 

VOL.  I.  54 


426  APPENDIX.  [C. 

to  the  canon.  The  book  of  Tobit,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and 
Sirach,  with  the  books  of  Maccabees,  and  the  rest  of  the  Apocrypha, 
while  they  were  pronounced  useful  and  instructive  works,  were 
excluded  from  the  list  of  sacred,  inspired,  and  canoniccd  writings. 
In  this  result  we  see  the  influence  of  Origen,  whose  works,  in  this 
century,  were  diligently  and  extensively  studied  in  the  Greek  church. 
Still  some  writers,  like  Athanasius,  Cyril,  and  Epiphanius,  refer  to 
the  apocryphal  books,  both  for  illustration  and  argument.  But  Ori- 
gen himself  did  the  same. 

<§>  16. 

II.   CANON  OF  THE  LATIN  CHURCH  IN  THE  FOURTH  CENTURY. 

1.  Canon  of  Jerome. 
Jerome  was  born  in  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century,  and  died 
420.  He  did  more  than  any  other  ancient  for  the  elucidation  of  the 
Scripture,  with  the  single  exception  of  Origen.  The  one  danced  to 
the  piping  of  the  other.  He  was  master  of  the  Latin,  the  Greek,  and 
Hebrew  languages.  In  the  preface  to  his  translation  of  the  books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings,  he  gives  a  catalogue  of  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  This  contains  all  the  old  canonical  Hebrczv  writings, 
that  is,  our  present  canonical  books,  and  no  more.  He  expressly 
excludes  the  apocryphal  books,  though  he  calls  some  of  them  valuable 
and  edifying  jcorhs.  He  says  the  Jews  have  not  the  apocryphal 
additions  to  Daniel,  but  ridicule  the  Christians  for  the  reverence  they 
pay  them.  He  censures  those  apocryphal  books  which  pass  un- 
der the  name  of  Ezra  (the  apocryphal  books  of  Esdras)  and  Solo- 
mon."* At  the  request  of  his  friends,  he  translated  Tobit  and  Judith 
into  Latin.  But,  in  the  preface  to  each  of  these,  he  states  that  they 
are  apocryphal.* 

^  17. 

2.    Canon  of  Rufnus. 
Rufinus  was  contemporary  with  Jerome,  and  agrees  with  him  per- 
fectly in  the  books  he  admits  to  the  canon  and  rejects  from  it.     The 
one  is  a  copy  of  the  other. 


*  ProBf.  in  Dan.  and  in  Ezek.    Adv.  VigiUus,  Opp.  iv.  p.  283,  sqq. 
»  Praef.  in  Tobit,  Opp.  i.  p.  1158.    Praef.  in  Judith,  p.  1170.     See  Lardner,  pt. 
ii.  ch.  114. 


C.J  APPENDIX.  4^7 

<§,  18. 

3.     Canon  of  the  Council  of  Carthage. 

The  third,  or,  as  others  call  it,  the  sixth,  council  of  Carthage,  says 
Lardner,"  assembled  in  397.  Aurelius,  the  bishop  of  Carthage,  pre- 
sided, and  the  celebrated  Augustine  was  present.  The  forty-seventh 
canon  of  this  council  establishes  the  canon  as  it  is  given  in  the  table. 
It  recognizes  six  apocryphal  books,  viz.  Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  and  Sirach,  and  the  two  books  of  Maccabees.  Does  it  not 
also  include  the  apocryphal  Esther,  and  Esdras,  with  the  canonical 
books  of  those  names  1 ' 

<§>  19. 

4.     Canon  of  Augustine. 

Augustine  was  born  354,  and  died  430,  A.  C.  His  canon  is  the 
same  that  was  established  by  the  council  of  Carthage."  Dr.  Lardner 
attempts  to  explain  his  admission  of  apocryphal  books  to  the  canon, 
and  shows,  if  he  really  maintained  the  canonicity  of  these  writings, 
he  was  inconsistent  with  himself;  for  he  frequently  uses  expressions 
which  show  that  these  books  were  not  esteemed  of  equal  authority 
with  those  of  the  Jewish  canon.  The  inconsistency  must  be  admitted. 
But  we  cannot  reconcile  the  difference  between  his  canon  and  that 
of  Jerome  with  the  common  hypothesis,  that  all  the  churches  of  the 
east  and  west  adhered  to  one  uniform  canon. 

CONCLUSION. 

While  the  Greek  church,  through  the  acquaintance  of  their  teach- 
ers with  the  original  Hebrew,  or  at  least  with  the  writings  of  Origen, 
adhered  to  the  original  and  genuine  canon,  the  councils  and  teach- 
ers of  the  Latin  church,  for  the  most  part  ignorant  of  Hebrew, 
enlarged  their  canon,  and  admitted  nearly  all  the  apocryphal  additions 
of  the  Alexandrian  version.  Jerome  and  Rufinus  are,  indeed,  noble 
exceptions  to  this  rule.     Their  learning  and  diligence  had  conducted 


*  See  Lardner,  pt.  ii.  ch.  116.  *  See  Mansi,  vol.  iii.  p.  891  and  924. 

•  Doctr.  Christ,  ii.  ch.  viii.  12,  13,  14. 


428  APPENDIX.  [d. 

them  to  the  truth;  they  walked  by  a  clearer  light  than  their  con- 
temporaries of  the  west.  Such  was  the  state  of  opinion  respecting  the 
canon  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  In  the  following  ages,  the 
apocryphal  and  canonical  writings  were  confounded  in  the  Catholic 
church."  In  the  Greek  church,  the  influence  of  Origen  still  con- 
tinued, and  they  were  kept  distinct.  But  at  this  day  there  is  no 
universal  canon  adopted  by  all  classes  of  Christians.  The  Greek  and 
the  Roman  church  have  always  differed.  The  Catholic  and  the 
Protestant  still  disagree.  It  is  not  necessary,  for  practical  purposes, 
that  the  limits  of  the  canon  should  be  determined,  though  the  results 
of  our  inquiry  decide  plainly  in  favor  of  the  present  canon  of  the 
Protestants.  But  on  what  ground  is  the  Song  of  Solomon  admitted 
to  the  canon,  while  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  is  cast  out  as  unclean? 
Certainly  not  for  its  intrinsic  merits.  The  Jewish  canon,  it  seems, 
contains  all  of  the  old  national  works  that  could  be  collected,  and 
rejects  all  other  compositions. 


D. 

HISTORY   OP  THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE  TO  THE  TIME 
OF  ITS  EXTINCTION.  6 

{See  §  30,  sqq.,  p.  120.) 

^1. 

ON    THE    SHEMITISH    LANGUAGES    IN    GENERAL. 

1.  The  Hebrew  language  is  only  a  single  branch  of  that  great 
stock  of  languages  and  nations  in  Hither  Asia,  which,  originally,  not 
only  embraced  Palestine,  but  also  Syria,  Phoenicia,  Babylonia,  Ara- 
bia, and  Ethiopia.     Some  have  wished  to  enumerate  Assyria,  and 

See  the  letter  of  Innocent,  bishop  of  Rome,  to  Exsuperius,  bishop  of  Toulouse, 
written  in  406.  All  the  books  of  the  Carthaginian  canon  are  declared  canon- 
ical by  it.  "  Recipiantur,"  says  the  bishop.  See  the  letter  in  Semler,  Untersuch 
«b.  d.  Kanons,  vol.  i.  p.  18.     See  also  p.  20—29. 

*  Translated  from  Gesenivs,  Geschichte  der  Heb.  Sprache,  beginning  with 
§  4,  which  is  here  §  1. 


D.] 


APPENDIX.  429 


the  two  provinces  in  Asia  Minor,  Cappadocia  and  Pontus  on  the 
Halys,  as  branches  of  this  trunk  ;  but,  to  say  the  least,  this  is  very 
uncertain.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  in  several  periods,  branches  of 
this  stock  have  extended  themselves  far  beyond  their  original  limits. 
For  example,  in  times  of  high  antiquity,  the  Phcenician  language 
prevailed  in  Carthage,  and  in  the  extended  colonies  and  factories  of 
this  commercial  people.  And,  in  the  middle  ages,  the  Arabic  lan- 
guage prevailed  in  all  the  northern  coasts  of  Africa,  as  far  as  Spain." 
2.  There  is  no  convenient  and  adequate  name  for  this  race  of 
languages  and  people.  The  Fathers,  and  Jerome  in  particular,  call 
these  languages,  by  way  of  distinction,  the  Oriental  languages.  In 
modern  times,  Eichhorn  has  recommended  that  the  term  Shemitish 
should  be  used  instead  of  the  other ;  because,  in  the  genealogical 
table  given  in  Gen.  x.  21,  sqq.,  most  of  these  people  are  derived 
from  Shem.  However,  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  term  is  some- 
times too  extensive,  and  sometimes  too  limited,  and  by  no  means 
answers  its  purpose.  But  yet  an  explanation  will  free  it  from  all 
chance  of  mistake,  and  so  it  may  still  be  used.* 

*  On  the  question  whether  a  language  kindred  to  the  Hebrew  was  spoken  in 
Assyria  also,  see  below,  §  111,  3.  The  inquiry  on  the  language  of  Asia  Minor, 
within  the  Halys,  is  likewise  connected  with  this.  Bochart,  (Canaan,  p.  535,) 
Heeren,  (Com.  Soc.  Gott.  vol.  viii.  p.  23,  sqq.,)  and  others,  maintain  that  a 
Syriac  dialect  obtained  here,  and  rely  for  authority  on  the  name  of  these  people 
—  white- Syrians,  Asvxoai'Qoi.  But  Slraho  (lib.  xii.)  expressly  ascribes  a  lan- 
guage of  their  own  to  the  Cappadocians,  the  limits  of  whose  possessions  he 
carefully  designates.  The  single  words  which  now  remain,  which  either  occur 
as  Assy rio-Persian,  or  else  are  of  unknown  meaning,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  fact  that  the  sacred  customs  of  the  Persians  prevailed  there,  (Sh-aho,  lib.  xv. 
p.  504,  al,  1065,)  and  that  the  name  Cappadocia  is  Persian,  (Herodotus,  vii.  14,) 
render  it  probable  that  these  provinces,  both  in  descent  and  language,  belong  to 
the  Assyrians,  and  not  the  Syrians.     See  Jablonskii  Opusc.  vol.  ii.  p.  126,  sqq. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  marks  which  tend  to  show  that  Phoenician 
was  spoken  in  some  parts  of  Asia  Minor.  Charilus,  a  contemporary  of  Alexan- 
der the  Great,  says  this  of  the  Solymi,  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  Lycia  and 
Pisidia.  Josephus  (Cont.  Ap.  i.  22)  cites  a  line  from  him  — 
r/.waaav  fiiv  (foivlaaav  an6  aro^tarwv  utpiivTug. 
But  Josephus  himself  misunderstands  the  passage,  for  he  supposes  the  Solymi 
are  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  Jews ;  and  the  verse  has  frequently 
been  adduced  to  prove  that  the  Jews  spoke  Phoenician  or  Canaanitish.  But 
others  corrected  the  mistake  long  ago.     See  Havercamp,  in  loo. 

*  See  Eichhorn,  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  vi.  p.  772,  sqq.,  and,  on  the  other  side,  Stange, 
Theol.  Symmicta,  vol.  i.  No.  1.  He  says  the  Cushites  and  Canxianites  were 
descended  from  Ham ;  and  it  is  certain  the  Elamites,  and  probable  that  the 
Assyrians,  did  not  belong  to  the  descendants  of  Shem.     Since  Lud  is  doubt- 


430  APPENDIX.  [d. 

3.  The  various  dialects  into  which  this  great  stock  of  languages 
is  divided  may  be  distinguished  into  three  main  branches:  — 

(1.)  The  AramcBun,  spoken  in  Syria,  Mesopotamia,  and  Babylo- 
nia. This  again  is  divided  into  the  east  and  west  Aramaean,  that  is, 
the  Chaldee  and  Syriac. 

(2.)  The  Canaanitish  or  Hebreto,  spoken  in  Palestine  and  Phoe- 
nicia.    The  Punic  is  a  descendant  of  this. 

(3.)  The  Arabic,  of  which  the  iCthiopic  is  a  parallel  branch. 
The  Samaritan  is  a  mixture  of  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaean. 

These  dialects  flourished  in  their  greatest  vigor  at  different  times. 
We  have  the  most  ancient  traces  of  the  formation  of  the  Hebrew,  in 
which,  in  general,  the  oldest  monuments  of  the  languages  of  an- 
tiquity are  preserved  to  us.  As  this  became  extinct,  the  east 
Aramaean,  or  Chaldee,  came  forth.  The  relics  we  possess  of  the 
Syriac  are  still  more  modern,  and  the  literature  of  the  Arabic  lan- 
guage extends  little  beyond  the  age  of  Mohammed.  We  have  no 
accounts  of  it  in  earlier  times,  even  if  it  attained  a  higher  degree  of 
culture. 

Most  of  these  dialects  are  now  extinct,  or  only  survive  in  frag- 
ments, in  obscure  districts.  But  the  Arabic  has  outlived  them  all, 
and  is  not  only  the  prevalent  popular  language  throughout  all  Syria, 
iEgypt,  Arabia,  and  the  north  coasts  of  Africa,  but,  as  the  religious 
language,  it  is  diffused  throughout  Persia  and  Turkey,  and  wherever 
the  religion  of  Mohammed  prevails.  On  account  of  the  religious 
interest  felt  in  the  Hebrew  language,  the  works  in  which  it  is  pre- 
served have  been,  incontestably,  more  widely  extended  since  its 
extinction,  than  while  it  was  a  living  tongue  :  from  this  cause,  as  the 
language  of  religious  books,  it  has  continued  to  live  in  the  two  great 
religious  parties  which  have  proceeded  from  it." 

ful,  only  two  of  Shem's  offspring,  Arphaxad  and  J3ram,  remain  for  our  stock  of 
languages.  Eichhorn  thinks  the  Canaanites  were  originally  Hamites,  and  adopted 
the  Shemitish  language  afterwards,  when  they  settled  on  the  coasts  of  the  Medi- 
terranean. But  this  is  mere  conjecture.  Still  less  has  it  been  proved  that 
originally  alphabetical  writing  belonged  to  the  Shemites,  and  hieroglyphics  to 
the  Hamites.  The  affinity  of  languages  is  one  of  the  most  treacherous  guides 
for  the  affinities  of  nations.  So  we  may  well  doubt  whether  the  author  of  that 
system  of  the  descent  of  nations,  in  Genesis,  is  in  the  right  when  he  declares 
part  of  the  Arabian  race  (the  Joctanides,  v.  26 — 30)  are  of  an  entirely  different 
origin  from  the  others,  (v.  7;)  and  also  when  he  separates  the  Hebrews,  in  this 
genealogy,  from  the  Canaanites. 

"  For  more  minute  accounts  of  the  character,  history,  and  literature,  of  these 
dialects,  see  Jldclung,  Mithridates,  vol.  i.  p.  299,  sqq.  Eichhorn,  Gesch.  Lit.  vol. 
V.  p.  405,  sqq. 


D.]  APPENDIX.  431 

4.  The  ditference  between  these  dialects  is  scarcely  as  great  as 
that  between  the  different  branches  of  the  Slavic,  or  the  German 
stock,  though  it  is  greater  and  different  from  that  between  the 
dialects  of  Greece,  with  which  they  have,  not  very  properly,  been 
compared.  The  following  are  some  of  the  most  striking  and  common 
peculiarities  in  which  they  all  differ  from  the  western  languages:  — 

(1.)  They  delight  in  gutturals,  of  various  degrees,  some  of  which 
cannot  be  imitated  by  us. 

(2.)  The  primitive  words  usually  consist  of  two  syllables,  and  are 
more  frequently  verbs  than  nouns. 

(3.)  The  oblique  cases  of  the  personal  pronouns  and  the  similar 
possessive  pronouns  are  always  affixed  to  the  verb,  noun,  or  particle. 

(4.)  The  verb  has  only  two  tenses.  As  for  the  optative  and  sub- 
junctive moods,  they  scarcely  exist.  On  the  contrary,  a  general 
analogy  is  found  in  expressing  the  different  modifications  in  the 
meaning  of  a  verbal. 

(5.)  There  are  only  two  genders,  masculine  and  feminine.  The 
cases  are  indicated  by  prepositions ;  the  genitive,  very  peculiarly,  by 
a  close  connection  with  the  nominative.  There  are  no  distinct 
forms  for  the  comparative  and  superlative.  However,  the  Arabic  is 
an  exception  to  this  rule. 

(6.)  Compound  words  are  never  found  either  as  nouns  or  verbs, 
but  only  as  proper  names. 

(7.)  The  syntax  is  somewhat  simple,  and  the  style  is  remarkable 
for  the  absence  of  a  periodic  structure,  which  arises  from  the  want 
of  particles  and  the  awkward  use  of  them.'* 

HEBREW  LANGUAGE.   ITS  DIFFERENT  NAMES. 

After  this  general  survey,  we  will  now  turn  to  the  Hebrew  language 
itself,  the  only  one  which  concerns  us  at  this  time. 

The  term  '^Hebrew  language"  (ri'i*l25  ^TOi)  does  not  occur  in 
the  Old  Testament,  though  it  must  have  been  common  when  part 
of  it  was  written.  Instead  of  this  name,  the  language  is  usually 
called  the  language  of  Canaan,  Isa.  xix.  18,  y$'}'2  '  ntiu;  but  here 
the  expression  is  rather  the  poetical  than  the  common  term.  It 
seems  to  be  called  the  Jews'  language  in  2  Kings  xviii.  26,  (com- 

<*  C.  G.  Anton,  Versuch  Unterscheidungszeichen  der  Or.  und  Occid.  Spr.  zu 
entdecken;  Leip.  1792,  8vo. 


432  AITENDIX.  [d. 

pare  Isa.  xxxvi.  11,  13,)  and  in  Neli.  xiii.  24.  The  latter  pas- 
sages follow  the  usage  which  arose  after  the  captivity  of  the  ten 
tribes ;  for,  after  that  event,  the  name  Judea  and  Jao  was  applied  to 
the  whole  land  and  nation.  In  Jeremiah  it  is  commonly  used  as  a 
general  name  of  the  people,  and  in  particular,  in  xxxiv.  9,  it  is  used 
as  synonymous  with  Hebretc.  The  term  Hebrew "  first  occurs  in 
the  Apocrypha.'  But  there  it  means  the  prevalent  Aramaean  popu- 
lar lanofuacre,  which,  at  that  time,  had  taken  the  place  of  the  old 
Hebrew.  In  Josephus,  by  the  term  language  of  the  Hebrews,"  the 
old  Hebrew  language  is  to  be  understood.'' 

Although  it  requires  no  proof  that  the  Hebrew  language  received 
this  name  because  it  was  the  language  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  yet, 
since  the  manner  of  using  and  writing  this  name,  since  its  origin 
and  meaning,  appear  to  be  contested,  a  short  explanation  on  these 
points  will  not  be  out  of  place.' 

1.  The  following  remarks  may  be  made  on  the  difference  between 
the  name  Hebrew  and  Israelite:  —  (1.)  In  the  writings  of  the  He- 
brews themselves,  the  former  word  is  chiefly  used  merely  as  an  an- 
tithesis to  men  of  a  different  race ;  for  example,  to  distinguish  them 
from  the  Egyptians,  or  Philistines,  or  where  one  not  a  Hebrew  is 
introduced  as  speaking. 

(2.)  Foreign  writers,  Greek  and  Roman,  seem  to  have  been 
acquainted  only   with  this  name   and  that  of  Jews,    but   to    know 

"  ' E^qdiml,  or  ti7  'E^^diSi  SutXiy.io).  *  Prologue  to  Sirach. 

"^  rioiaaa  T(3v  ' E^qaiiav. 

^  See  John  v.  2,  xix.  13;  Acts  xxi.  40,  xxii.  2,  xxvi.  14  ;  Josephus,  Ant.  i.  2, 
et  al.  See  Elias  Levita,  in  Thisbi,  voce  '^Tin'^;  Vitringa  ad  Isa.  xxxvi.  11; 
Mangey,  in  Philo,  vol.  ii.  p.  86 ;  and  Henke,  Museum,  vol.  ii.  p.  638. 

The  name  My  language  (St'IJTlpT  "^ffli)  first  occurs  in  the  Targum  on  Gen. 
xi.  1,  xxxi.  11,  47,  and  xlv.  12,  and  Pseudo-Jonathan.  By  this  term  it  is  dis- 
tinguished from  the  language  of  the  holy  books,  in  opposition  to  ^h  "^ ,  the 
■profane  language^  i.e.  the  Chaldee. 

The  term  Assyrian  language  (tT^^^UJi*)  is  sometimes  improperly  used  for  the 
Hebrew  language  written  in  the  Assyrian  characters.  Tr.  Megilla,  ch.  ii.  No.  1, 
vol.  ii.  p.  392,  ed.  Surenhusius.  Mikne  Mrahani,  fol.  6.  Gen.  Jakob,  fol.  142, 
col.  1. 

'  Yet  August!  rEinleit.  in  A.  T.  p.  27)  seeks  a  different  explanation.  "  The 
Arabians  were  divided  into  two  parties,  the  surviving  and  the  extinct.  Hebrew 
may,  perhaps,  mean  the  language  that  is  extinct.  (^^5  =  HSSi ,  interiit,  Job 
xxxiv.  20.    Ps.  cxliv.  4.)  " 

See  Pococke,  Spec.  Hist.  Arab.  p.  3. 

See  Lexicon,  sub  voce  i*lSS  .    Perhaps  1  Sam.  xiii.  3,  7,  is  the  only  exception. 


D.]  '  APPENDIX.  433 

nothing  of  the  term  Israelites.  So  Pausanias  calls  tliem  Hebrews, 
(rois  E^qalovg,)  and  their  land,  the  country  of  the  Hebrews,  {^E^Qa'iihv 
X(i>Q«-)  Tacitus  and  Josephus  use  this  term  throughout.  This  shows 
there  was  the  same  relation  between  these  two  contemporary  names 
which  we  find  among  many  nations :  Hebrcio  is  the  proper  name  of 
the  people,  by  which  they  were  known  to  foreign'  nations;  Israelite 
is  the  patronymic,  or  genealogical  name,  which  is  usually  current 
only  among  the  people  themselves."* 

Here  the  question  arises,  whether  the  name  Hcbreio  was  ever  used 
in  a  wider  sense  than  that  o^ Israelite.''  It  seems  this  was  the  case; 
but  the  limits  of  this  use  cannot  be  distinctly  defined.  Abraham  is 
called  the  Hebreto,  (Gen.  xiv.  13,)  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that 
his  race  was  called  by  the  same  name.  In  Gen.  x.  2,  Shem  is  called 
the  father  of  all  the  sons  of  Heber  —  an  expression  somewhat  emphatic. 
In  the  New  Testament,  the  term  Hcbreio  means  the  Sp-o-Chaldee, 
in  opposition  to  Greek  and  Latin  ;  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  used 
in  opposition  to  the  Aramaean.  In  the  latter,  might  not  the  term 
Hebreio  be  used,  inasmuch  as  it  embraced,  in  its  widest  sense,  the 
Aramaean  also?  However,  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  —  the  Ish- 
maelites,  or  Idumaeans, — or  of  Heber,  —  for  example,  the  Nahorites 
and  Arabians  descended  from  Joctan,  —  are  never  called  by  this 
name.  Though  originally  more  extensive,  the  term  may  have  been 
gradually  restricted. 

2.  The  genealogical  table  in  the  Bible  (Gen.  x.)  refers  the 
origin  of  the  name  to  Heber,  (^^ij) ,  ''E§e.q,)  the  founder  of  the  race, 
and  the  sons  of  Heber,  (nny  "^33,)  or  Heber,  is  used  poetically  for 
Hebrews,  (Q'^'l^S ,)  as  if  this  word  were  a  patronymic  from  Heber. 

But  the  spirit  of  that  entire  table,  in  which  names  of  people,  cities, 
and  lands,  are  personified,  leads  us  to  conclude  Heber  was  not  an  his- 
torical, but  only  a  mythical  personage,  whose  name  was  first  formed 
from  that  of  the  people.     This  was,  doubtless,  the  case  with  Ion, 


"  Compare  the  names  of  the  Hungarians  (i.  e.  strangers)  and  Magyars;  the 
Germans  (war-men)  and  Dutch,  (probably  a  patronymic  from  Teut;)  the  Phce- 
nicians  and  Canaanites ;  the  Kalmucks  (lingerers)  and  Oelots  ;  the  Tsherkassen 
(robbers)  and  Adige,  &c.  The  primitive  name  is  generally  appellative.  This 
fact  will  serve  as  a  guide  hereafter. 

^  Stuhlmann's  Hiob.  p.  24.  Probably  there  is  no  difference  in  the  meaning  of 
the  terms  in  2  Cor.  xi.  22,  and  Phil.  iii.  5;  the  repetition  is  mere  tautology,  aa  it 
appears  from  ajtiQ^ca  'AfiQaafi. 

VOL.  I.  65 


434  APPENDIX.  '  [d. 

Dorus,  and  tEoIus.  The  example  of  the  Arabians  shows  how  arbi- 
trarily the  Orientals  alter  these  names;  for,  when  they  repeat  their 
genealogy,  they  substitute  for  Heher,  Tin,  or  ^in,  names  which 
they  have  abbreviated  from  mni ."  It  is  very  difficult  to  tell  what 
was  the  true  origin  of  this  name;  but  it  may  be  considered  as 
decided  that  it  was,  originally,  an  appellative.  The  most  natural 
derivation  is  from  Eber,  (i^y  =  ^n-n  ^;iy ,  the  yonder  land,)  that  is, 
the  country  beyond  the  River  Euphrates.  Then  Hehrcics  meant, 
men  from  the  other  side — yondercrs.  The  Canaanites  might,  very 
properly,  have  applied  this  name  to  the  horde  that  migrated  with 
Abraham,  or  they  may  have  brought  it  with  them  from  an  earlier 
time.' 

ORIGIN    AND    AGE    OF    THE    HEBREW    LANGUAGE. 

1.  The  elder  writers  upon  language,  and  the  theologians,  in 
treating  this  subject,  adhered  to  the  mythical  history  of  Genesis, 
which  says  that  one  universal  language  prevailed  until  the  building 
of  the  tower  of  Babel,  and  from  this,  by  the  immediate  agency  of  the 
angry  Deity,  the  various  languages  of  the  world,  and  consequently 
the  Hebrew,  proceeded;  thus,  in  a  myth  full  of  meaning  and  im- 
portance, concealing  a  problem  which  no  philosophy  has  ever  solved 
in  a  satisfactory  manner." 

2.  Men  have  gone  still  further,  and  permitted  themselves  to  ask 
the  question.  What  was  the  original  and  universal  language?  Fol- 
lowing the  opinion  of  the  elder  Jews,  most  writers  decided  in  favor  of 
the  Hebrew,  and  attempted  to  establish  their  opinion  by  several  argu- 
ments, namely  :  (1.)  The  names,  before  the  confusion  of  tongues, 
have  a  genuine  Hebrew  etymology ;  for  example,  Qns* ,  man,  irin , 

«  See  Hottingcr,  Hist.  Orient,  p.  38 — 44. 

''  See  Bochart,  Phaleg.  xi.  14.  Hottingcr,  Thes.  Phil.  p.  5.  Loscher,  1.  c.  p.  53. 
Walton,  Prol.  iii.  1.  Hirzel,  1.  c.  p.  4.  It  has  been  falsely  derived  from  ^D5> 
directly,  or  from  t!n*l2i*,  as  Augustine  will  have  it,  Queest.  in  Gen.  lib.  i.  qu.  24. 
The  myth  of  the  confusion  of  tongues  (in  Gen.  xi.)  is  analogous  to  a  Greek 
fable  in  Philo,  Dc  Confusione  Linguarum,  (p.  251,  ed.  Colon,)  where  the  origin 
of  the  different  languages  is  placed  at  the  end  of  the  golden  age,  and  is  ascribed 
to  the  anger  of  Saturn  at  the  ingratitude  of  men.  Previous  to  this,  men  and 
animals  spoke  the  same  language,  and  were  mutually  intelligible  to  one  another. 
See  the  passage  from  Plato's  Politicus,  in  Bochart,  Phaleg.  p.  3, 


D.]  APPENDIX.  435 

breath,  vanity,  and  others.  They  forgot  that  these  very  names  might 
have  been  formed  by  the  Hebrews,  or  transformed.  (2.)  In  ahnost 
all  languages,  traces  of  the  Hebrew  may  be  found ;  this  sometimes 
takes  place  very  naturally,  but  it  is  not  to  be  proved  by  accidental 
resemblances.  (3.)  By  the  historical  explanation  of  particular  pas- 
sages, like  Gen.  ii.  23." 

3.  But  if,  independently  of  all  mythical  views,  we  attempt  to 
determine  something  as  to  the  antiquity  and  origin  of  the  language, 
we  find  ourselves  completely  forsaken  by  history.  In  those  writings 
which  are  proved  to  be  the  oldest,  we  find  the  language  in  the  same 
degree  of  culture  and  perfection  which  it  commonly  attained  in 
other  writings.  Beyond  this  we  cannot  follow  it,  as  we  can  the  Latin 
and  German  languages.  The  degree  of  grammatical  perfection 
which  belongs  to  it  is  not  small,  and  presupposes  an  existence  of 
centuries.  When  we  are  inquiring  about  its  antiquity,  we  must  not 
place  the  simplicity,  the  sensuous  and  poetical  character,  of  the  lan- 
guage too  high  in  the  estimate ;  for  that  simplicity  is,  for  the  most 
part,  the  characteristic  of  this  whole  class  of  languages;  and  its 
sensuous  and  poetic  character  is  scarcely  more  important  than  it 
usually  is  in  all  old  original  languages.*  The  onomato-poetica  are 
actually  less  numerous  than  in  the  western  languages,  and  less  than 
it  might  be  expected.  In  the  formation  of  the  radicals  of  three 
letters,  there  is  a  regularity  which  few  languages  can  show." 

4.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  He- 
brew language  was  more  closely  united  with  the  cognate  dialects; 
when  the  law  of  the  triliterals  was  not  yet  formed.  But  this  cannot 
be  proved ;  and  still  less  do  our  Hebrew  writings  extend  back  to  that 
time.     Since  Aramaisms  and  Arabisms  are  found  in  the  book  of  Job, 

"  See  Onkelos  and  Jerusalem  Targum,  on  Gen.  xi.  1.  Josephus,  Antiq.  i.  4, 
X.  2.  The  opinions  of  the  old  writers  may  be  found  in  St.  Morini  Exercitatt.  de 
Ling,  primoeva,  (1694,  4to. ;)  C.  A.  Bode,  Diss,  de  Ling,  prim.,  (1740,  4to. ;)  ji. 
Pfeifferi  0pp.  p.  689 ;  and  Anton,  De  Ling,  primajva,  (1800,  4to.) 

*  Herder's  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  vol.  i.  p.  7,  and  p.  310,  (German  cd.) 
Eichhorn,  Einleit.  §  10.  However,  it  is  not  necessary,  and  not  true  of  every 
language,  that,  in  its  earlier  age,  it  should  have  been  a  highly  poetic  language, 
since,  in  the  oldest  documents,  it  has  come  down  to  the  very  verge  of  prose. 

'  The  following  are  some  of  the  onomato-poetica :  ^^Hi. ,  '"■in ,  '^iDN ,  alas  ; 
nti ,  ah  ;  njAri ,  io,  euge;  TOSi ,  n3»4)  'pl^ ,  pS43  ,  to  sigh,  to  groan ;  "nni  >  ppi  ,  to 
lick;  'p^'ili ,  avoiLifi' ;  in,  turtur,  (but  the  name  of  animal  sounds,  for  the  most 
part,  is  not  imitated  from  their  actual  sound  j)  ptTiJ ,  to  lauirh  ;  ills',  to  neigh; 
Cro ,  to  loic. 


436  APPENDIX.  [d. 

some  have  availed  themselves  of  the  circumstance  in  order  to  refer 
the  book  to  the  earliest  period ;  and  they  have  appealed  to  the  confu- 
sion of  the  Greek  dialects  in  the  Homeric  age.  But  these  Aramaisms 
and  Arabisms  do  not  differ  from  those  which  are  found  in  the  other 
poetic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  particularly  those  which 
belong  to  the  second  period  of  the  language.  This  argument,  then, 
for  the  high  antiquity  of  the  book,  is  as  untenable  as  all  others." 


<^4. 

COUNTRY    WHERE    IT    ORIGINATED.       ITS    RELATION    TO    THE 
PHffiNICIAN    LANGUAGE. 

Without  doubt  we  are  to  look  to  Palestine  as  the  birthplace  of  the 
Hebrew  language  ;  and  obvious  appearances  unite  in  supporting  the 
assertion  that,  with  a  few  alterations,  it  was  the  language  of  the 
Canaanitish  or  Phoenician  race,*"  who  inhabited  Palestine  before  the 
immigration  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham.  The  latter  received 
this  language,"  carried  it  to  JEgypt,  and  brought  it  back  with  them 
to  Canaan.  The  following  are  the  most  weighty  arguments  in  favor 
of  this  conclusion  :  — 

1.  The  Canaanitish  names  of  persons  and  places  are  genuine 
Hebrew,  and,  for  the  most  part,  their  etymology  can  be  very  easily 
ascertained  ;  for  example,  Abimelech,  "ni^^il^i* ,  (father  of  the  king;) 

Melchisedek,     I:n5:'i:p^)3 ,    {Icing    of   righteousness;)    Adonibezek, 

ptn  "^a-'bi!,  &ic.  &c.     It   cannot  be  objected   to   this,  that   perhaps 

"  The  statement  (Gen.  xxxi.  47)  that  Laban,  a  man  of  Mesopotamia,  called  a 
place  by  the  Syriac  name  S^il^iriir-^^'^ ,  which  Jacob  called  by  the  Hebrew  name 

n!?D3 ,  hill  of  witness,  presupposes  that  the  dialects  were  then  divided  as  they 

afterwards  were.  But  it  merely  proves  ihey  were  so  divided  in  the  writer's  time, 
and  he  supposed  such  was  the  case  in  the  patriarchal  age.  But  the  circum- 
stance is  not  improbable.  The  Jews,  however,  think  Abraham  spoke  Aramajan 
before  his  migration  to  Canaan.  Liber  Cosri,  ii.  68.  See  Preface  to  Gesenms's 
Lexicon,  translated  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  vol.  iii.  p.  1 — 45.  Simonis,  Ar- 
canum, p.  140.     Ilgcn,  De  Jobi Nat.  et  Virt.  p.  18. 

*  ']j!'2'3 ,  or  *i::5>3:d  ,  is  incontestably  the  domestic  name  of  the  Phoenicians  : 
even  the  Carthaginians  were  acquainted  with  it;  for  Augustine  says  (Ex.  Ep. 
Rom.)  some  rustics  near  Hippo,  being  asked  whence  they  were,  answered,  in 
Punic,  Chanani;  i.  e.  they  were  Canaanites. 

^$^3  is  read  on  Phojnician  coins.     Eckhel,  Doct.  Num.  vol.  iv.  p.  409. 

"  According  to  Gen.  xxxi.  47,  an  Aramccan  dialect  is  ascribed  to  them.  See 
above,  p.  435,  No.  4. 


D.]  APPENDIX.  437 

these  names  were  afterwards  given  to  these  places,  or  that  names  of 
persons  and  places  were  Hebraized,  with  some  alterations;  for  the 
character  of  the  language  is  so  penetrating  that  we  can  easily  com- 
pare with  it  the  Persian  and  ^Egyptian  names,  on  which  it  has  made 
only  rare  and  slight  alterations.  Sometimes,  when  names  are 
changed,  the  fact  is  expressly  stated ;  for  example,  Num.  xxxii.  38, 
Jos.  XV.  15,  xix.  47. 

2.  The  case  is  the  same  with  the  Phcenician  proper  names,  and 
the  PhcEnician  words  that  are  deciphered  from  inscriptions  and 
coins,  or  preserved  by  Greek  and  Roman  writers.  So  far  as  these 
words  can  be  recognized,  they  either  coincide  completely  with  the 
Hebrew,  both  in  form  and  signification,  or  they  approach  more 
nearly  to  it  than  to  any  other  of  the  cognate  dialects,  even  nearer 
than  to  the  Syriac. 

The  Punic  language,  spoken  at  Carthage,  which  early  separated 
from  the  parent  state,  without  doubt  received  many  foreign  ingre- 
dients; but  it  cannot  conceal  its  origin.  Augustine  and  Jerome, 
among  the  ancients,  frequently  remarked  this.'' 

3.  After  the  return  from  ^gypt,  the  Canaanites  remained  a  long 
time  with  the  Hebrews  in  the  land,  and  no  difference  of  language  is 
mentioned.  But  this  difference  between  the  Jewish  and  other  lan- 
guages was  noticed,  not  only  in  respect  to  the  Egyptians,  (Ps.  Ixxxi. 
6,  cxiv.  1,)  but  in  respect  to  such  nations  as  spoke  the  cognate  dialects, 
for  example,  the  Aramaean,  as  used  by  the  Assyrians,  (Isa.  xxxvi. 
11,)  and  the  east-Aramaean  of  the  Chaldees,  (Jer.  v.  15.) 

4.  The  Hebrew  language  itself  seems  to  present  certain  phe- 
nomena which  lead  to  the  opinion  that  it  was  formed  in  Canaan. 
Thus  the  term  sea  (n*^)  is  the  only  term  for  "  the  west."  It  is  some- 
times said  that  the  internal  structure  of  the  language  shows  it  grew 
up  in  the  midst  of  polytheism;  but  the  appearances  that  seem  to 
favor  this  opinion  can  be  explained  in  another  way  more  satisfactorily, 
and  more  in  accordance  with  analogy.* 


"  Augustine,  Ep.  ad  Rom. :  Christus  : Hunc  Hebrsei  dicunt  Messiam, 

quod  verbum  linguae  punicae  consonum  est,  sicut  alia  Hebrtea  permulta  et  psene 
omnia.  Qutest.  in  Jud.  vi.  16:  Istte  linguae  non  multum  inter  se  difFerunt. 
Tract.  XV.  in  Joan. :  Cognatae  quippe  sunt  linguae  istfe,  Hebroea  et  Funica.  Je- 
rome, on  Isa.  vii. :  Lingua  Punica  quae  de  Hebraeorum  fontibus  manare  dicitur. 
See,  also,  on  Jer.  v.  25.     Praef.  in  Ep.  ad  Galatos. 

b  See  Eichhorn,  §  10,  11. 

Clericus  (Ling.  Heb.  i.  5,  and  on  Gen.  i.  1,  and  xi.  5)  thinks  fi'^ni^S  of  poly- 


438  APPENDIX.  [d. 

5.  For  this  reason  it  is  called  the  language  of  Canaan.  Isa. 
xix.  8." 

AGE  OF  THE  LANGUAGE  IN  ITS  PRESENT  FORM. 

It  may  be  maintained,  with  the  highest  degree  of  probability,  that 
the  Hebrew  language,  in  its  present  form,  and  the  literary  produc- 
tions in  that  language,  can  scarcely  extend  beyond  the  period  of 
David  and  Solomon.  Here  it  is  that  we  find  the  first  sure  ground  in 
the  history  of  the  language. 

On  the  supposition  that  the  Pentateuch  was  a  production  of 
the  Mosaic  age,  we  must  place  the  termhuis  a  quo  much  higher. 
But  although  this  doctrine  has  found  such  learned  defenders  in  the 
present  age,  it  can  scarcely  be  brought  again  before  the  bar  of 
impartial  criticism.  If  there  were  no  historical  arguments,  the  lan- 
guage, with  which  we  are  now  alone  concerned,  would  lie  as  a  very 
important  weight  in  the  balance;  for  it  is  a  fact  that  the  language 
of  the  Pentateuch  coincides  perfectly  with  that  of  the  other  old 
historical  books,  and,  in  the  poetic  passages,  it  coincides  with  the 
poetry  of  the  first  age  of  the  language.''  If  these  writings  are  sepa- 
rated by  nearly  a  thousand  years  from  one  another  ;  if  the  former  are 
to  be  ascribed  to  Moses,  as  some  maintain,  then  we  shall  have  a 
phenomenon  before  us  that  is  without  a  parallel  in  the  whole  history 
of  languages,  namely,  that  the  living  language  and  the  circle  of  ideas 
of  the  people  remained  unaltered  during  so  long  a  period. 

theistic  origin,  but  was  preserved  after  the  introduction  of  monotheism,  and  ap- 
phed  to  God,  who  stood  in  the  place  of  all  gods.  Jewish  writers  preceded  him 
in  this.  Liber  Cosri,  p.  256.  See  Herder,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  48.  Gabler,  in  Eich- 
horn's  Urgesch.  vol.  i.  p.  220,  pt.  ii.  p.  108,  vol.  ii.  p.  218.  Eickhorn,  in  voce  in 
Simonis  Lex.  But  the  thought  is  rather  ingenious  than  well  founded,  for  the 
jduralis  excellentim  occurs  in  fi'^i'lbt  and  to^i^ya ,  where  such  an  explanation 
cannot  be  admitted. 

"  See  proofs  of  this  in  Walton,  Prol.  iii.  14—19.  Bochart,  Can.  ii.  1.  Cleri- 
ens,  1.  c.  No.  5.  Bellcrmann,  Erklilrung  d.  punischen  Stellen  im  Ponulus  der 
Plautus,  pt.  i.  p.  5,  and  pt.  iii.  p.  5.  An  appeal  has  erroneously  been  made  to  the 
verse  in  Chcerilus.  See  §  1 ,  No.  1.  ^.  Pfeiffer,  Opp.  692.  Fulleri,  Miscel.  iv.  4. 
Herder  (1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  317)  calls  this  opinion  "one  ot  the  fables  of  our  age,  which 
has  not  understood  its  meaning,"  but  brings  no  proof. 

'  The  unimportant  idiomatic  expressions  need  not  be  considered  in  this  con- 
nection. 


D.]  APPENDIX.  439 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  this  in  two  ways:"  1.  that 
the  Oriental  languages,  like  their  customs  and  manners,  alter  less 
than  those  of  Western  nations;  and,  2.  that  the  writings  of  Moses 
were  the  classics  of  the  nation,  and  so  became  the  rule  and  standard 
of  succeeding  writers.  But  it  can  easily  be  shown  how  inadequate 
these  theories  are  to  explain  the  fact.  The  first  is  by  no  means 
supported  by  history  to  the  degree  maintained ;  for  all  know  that  the 
Oriental  languages,  with  which  we  are  acquainted  during  a  thousand 
years,  have  undergone  very  obvious  changes  during  that  period. 
The  last  has  still  less  weight.* 

In  this  connection,  it  has  been  maintained,  either  that  these  old 
documents  were  imitated  in  the  subsequent  written  language  alone, 
or  that  the  living  and  spoken  language  was  likewise  fixed  by  such 
classic  works.  In  the  first  case,  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  example  of 
the  Greeks  and  Romans;  to  that  of  the  Koran  and  Luther's  Bible. 
This  is  the  only  argument  that  has  a  show  of  probability  in  its  favor. 
But  this  theory  not  only  contradicts  other  plain  evidence  that  the 
Mosaic  writings  did  not  exist  so  early,  but  also  assumes  that,  like 
those  classics,  they  were  in  all  hands.  Still  further,  the  other  his- 
torical books  have  not  the  character  of  imitations,  like  some  of  the 
later  imitative  psalms.  They  do  not  relate  to  the  Pentateuch,  as  the 
poems  of  the  Alexandrian  writers  relate  to  those  of  Homer,  but  in 
language  and  character  they  seem  to  be  productions  of  the  same,  or 
very  similar  ages. 

Finally,  these  analogies  do  not  prove  what  is  expected  of  them. 
The  case  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics  is  not  to  the  point;  for 
the  question  now  concerns  a  living,  not  a  dead  language.  The  two 
other  cases  are  against  this  hypothesis ;  for  our  literary  language  and 
that  of  the  Arabians  are  no  longer  the  language  of  Luther's  Bible 
or  the  Koran.  The  last  case  answers  itself  Even  in  our  age  of 
study,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  a  writer,  though  never  so  classic, 
could,  in  the  slightest  degree,  hold  back  the  pressure  of  the  living 
language ;  not  to  mention  that,  in  antiquity,  there  was  incomparably 

"  Michaelis,  Einleit.  in  A.  T.  p.  166.  Jahn,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  266.  Eckermann's 
Theol.  Beytrage,  vol.  v.  pt.  i.  p.  92. 

*  Jahn  (1.  c.)  appeals,  with  the  more  plausibility,  to  the  example  of  the  Syriac 
in  the  Peshito  of  the  second  century,  which  does  not  differ  in  essentials  from 
that  of  Mtdpharagius  in  the  thirteenth.  But  here  he  overlooks  the  most  im- 
portant fact,  that,  since  the  Arabian  conquest,  the  Syriac  has  been  a  dead  lan- 
guage, capable  of  no  further  development  or  culture.  But  still  their  stock  of 
words  (Sprachvorrath)  is  remarkably  different. 


440  APPENDIX.  [d. 

less  reading  and  writing,  and  more  speaking  and  acting.  The  con- 
trary case  is  rather  the  true  one  —  that  the  language  carries  the 
old  documents  along  with  it,  in  their  turn,  and  constrains  them  to 
speak  in  the  language  of  later  times.  If,  here  and  there,  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, far  older  documents  are  actually  to  be  found,  at  the  bottom," 
we  must  necessarily  assume  that  they  have  been  wrought  over,  and 
clothed  anew  in  the  language  of  the  age.  The  result  remains  the 
same  for  the  history  of  language,  namely,  that  the  literary  productions 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  written  in  their  present  form 
before  the  exile,  were  all  composed  about  the  same  time.''  This  is 
the  only  point  to  be  proved  in  this  place. 


^6. 

FIRST    PERIOD    OF    THE    HEBREW    LANGUAGE. 

1.  As  the  language  appears  at  present  in  the  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  we  can  distinguish  in  them  only  two  periods  distinctly 
marked  by  their  character.  The  one  includes  the  jvrithigs  before 
the  exile,  the  other  the  icritings  during  the  exile  and  after  it.  The 
former  has,  not  inappropriately,  been  named  the  golden,  the  latter  the 
silver  age. 

2.  Here,  two  kinds  of  style  are  met  with,  existing  at  the  same 
time  —  the  prose  of  the  common  historical  narrative,  and  the  poetical 
diction.  The  latter,  with  all  its  peculiarities,  occurs  in  the  historical 
books,  whenever  prophecies,  blessings,  and  songs  of  praise,  rise 
to  poetry.  This  poetical  language,  —  which  is  not  externally  distin- 
guished by  measure  of  the  syllables,  but  rather  by  a  rhythmic  measlire 
of  periods,  and  their  parallelism,  —  in  reference  to  the  usages  of  lan- 
guage, forms  and  significations  of  words,  grammatical  additions,  &c., 
has  many  peculiarities  of  its  own,  which  are  not  always  properly  ob- 
served. Most  of  these  peculiarities  belong  to  the  common  form,  in 
other  dialects,  and  particularly  the  Syriac ;  and  this  explains  the 
fact,  that  some  of  these  peculiarities  reappear  in  the  later  style  of  the 
silver  age,  which  has  an  Aramaean  tinge.     In  reference  to  rhythm  and 

"  It  is  probable  there  are  such  in  the  decalogue. 

^  In  opposition  to  the  writers  mentioned  in  note  a,  p.  439,  see  Fulda,  in  Paii- 
lus's  Neu.  Rep.  vol.  iii.  p.  135.  Othmar,  (JVachtigall,)  in  Henke's  Mag.  vol.  ii. 
p.  471.  Compare  Melung,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p,  359.  Meyer's  Hermeneutik.  A.  T.  vol. 
i.  p.  124,  sqq. 


D.]  APPENDIX.  441 

language,  the  prophets  stand  midway  between  poetry  and  prose.  Yet 
the  prophets  of  the  golden  age  belong  ahnost  entirely  to  the  poets. 
The  later  prophets,  for  example,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  first  ap- 
proach the  prosaic  style." 

3.  By  the  very  nature  of  the  Hebrew  language,  it  is  impossible  to 
distinguish  sharply  what  belongs  to  this  or  to  the  following  period ; 
besides,  this  is  not  the  place.  In  general,  only  the  following  can  be 
affirmed  with  any  probability :  Of  the  larger  historical  writings,  the 
Pentateuch,  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  the  Kings, 
may  be  reckoned  in  this  class ;  at  least  the  chief  portions  of  them 
were  composed  in  this  period,  though  it  is  still  necessary  to  suppose 
there  was  a  later  redaction,  and  an  addition  of  single  parts  was 
made.*  The  collection  of  Psalms,  especially  in  its  first  books,  con- 
tains, doubtless,  many  old  pieces  from  David,  or  his  school.  How- 
ever, the  greater  part  of  them  are  a  production  of  later  times.  It  is 
often  very  difficult  to  decide  in  particular  cases;  for  later  poets  often 
imitate,  very  successfully,  the  language  of  the  earlier,  and  sometimes, 

"  On  the  rhythm,  see  De  JVette,  Introduction  to  the  Psalms,  in  Bib.  Repository, 
vol.  iii.  p.  445,  sqq.  G.  I.  L.  Vogel,  De  dialectico  Poet.  V.  T. ;  Helmst.  1784.  Mar- 
bend,  in  Ex.  XV.  Preface  to  Gesenius's  Lexicon,  in  the  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  ii.  1.  c.  Some 
peculiar  words  are  used  in  poetry,  for  which  we  find  different  terms  in  prose ; 
e.  g.  OTS!: ,  for  Q"755 ,  man;  tlfii^ ,  for  i^iS,  to  come;  tl^tl,  for  '1'''^iii,  to  show;  Hlb^a  , 
for  1i"1  J  a  word;  Qlp ,  for  tiiS' »  antiquity;  tintil ,  for  'D^'n ,  water. 

1.  To  the  signification  of  words  belongs  the  use  of  adjectives  for  substan- 
tives, applied  to  a  definite  subject;  e.g.  "I'^^S* ,  the  Strong,  i.e.  God;  T^Si*  > 
the  strong,  i.  e.  an  ox;  m^)T^>  the  only,  the  favorite,  used  for  life,  &c.  «&.c.; 
besides,  COi*^ »  -pS"^ ,  and  1U33> ,  for  kingdom  of  Israel,  Israel  in  general,  and 
Edom,  &c. 

2.  To  the /orm  of  words.  — Plibsj!.,  for  Q^'^bH,  God;  niH,  for  n'^^n,  to  be; 
^"'l^'ay ,  people ;  il^'STli ,  years;  fliJOl,  days,  for  the  termination  in  Di;  '^3)2,  and 
13?2,  foT']^;  ^12)2,  for  i3:9?2,o/me;  'TJ^n'! '  ^^^  "^l^.*^..'  ^iU go- 

3.  Grammatical  forms  and  affixes.  —  The  paragogic  letters,  H- ,  1-,  and  '^- ,  the 
first  in  Stat,  absol.,  the  latter  as  nomen  regens,  the  suffixes  to  ^)2  j  ^-  S-  "^^~ ' 
i>ai  '  i^"^:. ,  (for  t3- 1  tinb  >  'Orj'^- ;)  'in"'-  ini ,  for  T^-  ,  'ipi- ,  for  U^y_ ;  the  plural 
is  y'-  and  '^j,for  'Q'^-;  the  use  o£  Piel  and  Hiphilas  intransitive,  \he  intaxe 
apocopate  for  the  common  forms,  use  of  the  participle  of  the  finite  verb,  irregu. 
larities  of  number  and  case,  ellipsis  of  the  prepositions,  &c. 

*>  The  33d  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  must  have  been  added  in  later  times ;  v.  7 
could  scarcely  have  been  written  at  any  time  except  during  the  exile. 
VOL.  L  bQ 


442  APPENDIX.  [d. 

as  in  the  case  of  the  Psalms  of  Korah,  perhaps,  surpass  them  in  poetic 
value.  However,  it  is  of  the  highest  importance,  —  and  the  remark 
has  been  justly  made,  —  that  a  certain  hardness,  compressedness,  and 
boldness,  a  struggle  between  the  thought  and  language,  should  be  re- 
garded as  a  mark  of  antiquity.  Later  poets  move  after  the  customary 
forms,  while  the  former  must  first  break  the  path.  The  book  of  Prov- 
erbs has  more  unity  of  character  and  language  ;  it  contains  nothing 
which  renders  it  necessary  to  assume  that  it  was  composed  at  a  later 
date.  Next  to  this  comes  the  book  of  Job,  though,  in  another  respect, 
it  inclines  to  the  later  character.*^ 

The  age  and  genuineness  of  the  Prophets  are  the  most  certain. 
It  is  only  difficult  to  determine  their  relative  age.  The  four  con- 
temporaries, Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  and  Isaiah,  make  the  beginning.* 
Of  these,  Hosea  is  particularly  distinguished  by  his  antique  hardness, 
and  inconcinnity  of  expression.  Next  come  Joel,  Nahum,  and  Hab- 
akkuk,  equally  distinguished  by  high  poetic  flight,  lively  coloring,  and 
a  certain  classic  concinnity,  in  which  Joel  surpasses  all."  Oba- 
diah,  Zephaniah,  and  Jeremiah,  were  nearly  contemporary  witnesses 
of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldees,  and  the  captivity. 
The  last  of  these  sang  his  elegies  on  the  ruins  of  Jerusalem.  Finally, 
Ezekiel  uttered  his  oracles  during  the  exile,  on  the  banks  of  the 
Chaboras.  But  this  most  original  of  the  poets,  whose  luxuriant  fancy 
swells  out  into  new,  gigantic,  and  grotesque  figures,  possesses  too 
little  taste  and  concinnity  to  merit  the  name  of  a  classic  writer.'' 

"  Ps.  X.  and  Ixviii.  must  therefore  be  old.  See  Dathe's  Psalm,  p.  147.  De 
fVeite,  Com.  Ob.  d.  Ps.  p.  23,  sqq.  The  same  must  be  said  of  some  of  the  older 
prophets. 

''  Here  the  later  and  spurious  passages  nmst  be  rejected ;  e.  g.  Isa.  xl. — Ixvi. 
This  forms  a  whole,  —  composed,  indeed,  at  the  end  of  the  exile,  —  and  has  no 
small  excellences  of  language,  though  it  is  prolix,  and  contains  repetitions.  By 
this  operation  more  than  half  of  Isaiah  must,  perhaps,  be  rejected;  and  it  may  be 
asked  how  the  collection  came  to  be  called  by  his  name.  Perhaps  in  consequence 
of  the  well-known  rule,  a  potior i,  —  which  so  often  guided  the  Hebrews.  But 
who  does  not  know  with  how  little  critical  judgment  the  titles  of  works  and  col- 
lections are  selected  by  the  Orientals  .-' 

'  Several  parallels,  especially  of  an  historical  character,  in  Joel  and  Amos, 
show  the  two  prophets  lived  about  the  same  time.  See  Rosenmnller,  in  V.  T. 
pt.  vii.  vol.  i.  p.  433,  who  follows  Vitringa.  Nahum  and  Habakkuk  are  to  be 
placed  somewhat  later.  The  first  mentions  the  invasion  of  the  Assyriaiis,  the 
last,  of  the  Chaldees. 

^  The  Bible  itself  sometimes  give  notice  that  the  language  had  changed;  e.  g. 
1  Sam.  ix.  9,  H'^^S,  {■prophet,)  anciently  called  ntt") ,  (see-er.)  SamueZ  is  called 
by  this  name,  2  Sam.  ix.  9,  1  Ch.  ix.  22, 26, 28,  xxix.  29 ;  and  also  a  later  prophet, 


D.]  APPENDIX.  443 

SECOND    PERIOD.       LATER  AND    CHALDAIZING    LANGUAGE. 

1.  With  the  exile  begins  a  new  epoch  for  language  and  literature, 
which  is  particularly  distinguished  by  an  approach  to  the  cognate 
east-Aramaean  dialect,  to  which  the  Jews  in  the  land  of  exile  became 
accustomed.  At  first,  this  dialect  served  only  as  the  language  of  the 
people,  in  connection  with  the  proper  Hebrew  language.  But  after 
the  return,  it  gradually  displaced  the  old  dialect  from  the  mouth  of 
the  people ;  so  that,  at  the  end  of  the  Maccabaic  period,  the  latter 
only  maintained  itself  as  the  written  language,  on  which,  however, 
the  influence  of  the  cognate  dialects  was  perfectly  unavoidable.  But 
this  influence  is  not  equally  great  upon  all  the  literary  productions 
of  this  epoch;  and  several  pieces  which  their  historical  connections 
refer  to  a  late  period,  are  nothing  inferior  to  the  works  of  a  previous 
age,  in  regard  to  purity  of  style." 

2.  In  general,  this  age  is  inferior  to  the  former  in  respect  to  his- 
torical and  poetical  composition,  as  well  as  to  purity  of  language. 
The  modern  prophets,  Haggai,  Malachi,  and  several  late  psalmists, 
write  in  the  most  weak  and  watery  style.  Poor  in  invention,  they 
pile  up  old  phrases.''  The  books  of  Daniel,  Esther,  and  Jonah,  con- 
tain legends  suited  to  a  perverted  Jewish  taste.  Finally,  the  book 
of  Chronicles  is  an  uncritical  compilation  of  more  ancient  historical 
works.  It  was  composed  by  priests  of  a  late  age,  and  is  conceived 
in  their  spirit.  However,  this  decision  is  not  to  be  pronounced  too 
generally,  for  even  the  Maccabaic  period  shows  that  the  old  spirit 


Chanani,  2  Ch.  xvi.  7, 10.  In  Exod.  iii.  14,  the  name  of  God  is  changed  from 
"^"lO  to  nin"'  •  See  J.  C.  Bonnet,  Biblioth.  Hag.  CI.  iv.  p.  205,  who  shows  the 
true  sense  of  the  passage.  Compare  De  Wette,  BeitrSge,  vol.  ii.  p.  177,  sqq. 
Vater,  Com.  in  Pent.  vol.  iii.  p.  631.  The  proper  names  also  contain  vestiges 
of  the  older  language. 

"  E.  g.  the  Pseudo- Isaiah,  (ch.  xl. — Ixvi.,)  the  Psalms  of  the  Sons  of  Korah, 
which,  for  the  most  part,  belong  to  the  times  of  the  exile  or  after  it,  (Ps.  xliv. 
Ixxxiv.  Ixxxv.,)  most  of  the  Psalms  "of  degrees,"  (cxx.  sqq.,)  belong  to  the 
same  period;  as,  also,  Ps.  Ixxiv.  Ixxix.,  and  some  others,  in  which,  with  Paulus, 
Rosenniiiller,  and  De  Wette,  we  discover  marks  of  the  Maccabaic  age.  Purity 
of  language  is  not  a  certain  proof  of  antiquity,  though  the  reverse  is  true,  that 
Chaldaizing  language  proves  a  later  age.     See  De  Wette,  1.  c.  p.  16 — 26. 

^  E.  g.  Ps.  Ixix.  (compare  xxii.)  xxv.  xxxv.  Ixxxviii.  So  the  hymns  in 
Chronicles,  and  that  in  Jonah,  chap.  ii. 


444  APPENDIX.  [d. 

had  not  entirely  departed  from  the  severely-oppressed  nation.  On 
the  contrary,  in  particular  instances,  it  arose  with  fresher  life,  and 
bloomed  with  new  beauty.  But  why  could  not  a  religious  enthusiasm 
like  this  inspire  them  for  something  better  than  weapons  and  war  ?  " 
In  regard  to  taste,  thought,  and  manner,  a  high  poetic  value  belongs 
not  only  to  most  of  these  passages,  but  also  to  those  books  where 
the  language  is  very  modern  and  Chaldaic,  which,  however,  does  not 
diminish  their  poetic  value.  To  these  belong  the  beautiful  139th 
psalm ;  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes ;  the  idyls  of  the  Canticles ;  and 
some  sublime  visions  of  Daniel,  (for  example,  chap,  vii.)  This  fact 
has  been  too  much  neglected,  and  an  altogether  improper  use  has 
been  made  of  it  in  the  inquiries  upon  the  book  of  Job. 

3.  Those  books  in  which  this  later  language,  with  the  Chaldaic 
tinge,  appears  the  most  distinctly,  form  a  cyclus  of  writings  which 
mutually  illustrate  each  other.  The  Chaldee  of  the  Targums,  and 
the  contemporary  portions  of  the  Apocrypha,  translated  from  the 
Aramaean  originals,  offer  assistance  in  explaining  these  books  which 
is  not  yet  sufficiently  made  use  of.  They  are  Esther,  Ecclesiastes, 
Chronicles,  Daniel,  Jonah,  and  some  of  the  Psalms.  The  language 
is  somewhat  more  pure  in  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Zachariah,  Malachi,  and 
the  Song  of  Solomon,  which  Job  resembles.  But  it  is  well  known 
the  books  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  contain  passages  written  entirely  in 
Chaldee. 

4.  Among  the  marks  of  this  later  style,  the  proper  Chaldaisms 
may  be  distinguished  from  the  other  peculiarities  of  the  modern  He- 
braism. The  former  are  more  numerous,  and  of  two  kinds.  Either 
the  Aramaean  word  has  been  adopted  in  its  own  form  and  sense,  — 
and  this  is  oftenest  the  case,  —  or  the  Aramaean  usage,  the  common 
turning  and  signification  of  words,  have  been  imitated,  while  the  He- 
brew form  was  preserved.'' 

The  modern  Hebraisms  which  cannot  be  referred  to  the  Aramaean 
are  particularly  obvious  where  a  different  expression  was  common,  in 
the  older  writings,  for  the  same  idea."     Now,  the  language  of  the  Tal- 

"  See  Bengel,  Siipplem.  ad  Int.  Psalm  ;  1806.  He  appeals  very  pertinently  to 
Ecclesiasticus. 

*  E.  g.  in  old  Hebrew,  n>0  means  only  lohat?  Chaldaizing,  ir-n?p ,  that 
ichich,  (Syriac  ?  ^i>o  )  TiTK  C'^  is  repeated  for  guidam,  (in  imitation  of  the 
Syriac,  ?  h^\ ;)  the  pleonastic  ^fflbt  t'^'lP'O  ,  at  the  place  ichcre,  for  ichere;  in  the 
Syriac,  ?  hZ]  ■     So  "llt^ii  3"":n ,  (Eccl.  viii.  17,)  in  the  Aramssan,  "n  3'^'ia  ,  &c. 

'  !n5'i3":n  tjnb ,  instead  of  a'-itsn  tnb . 


D.]  APPENDIX.  445 

muds  and  the  rabbins  belongs,  for  the  most  part,  to  this  later  usage, 
which  was  common  with  them,  and  which  may  be  advantageously 
explained  from  them. 

5.  Since  no  attempt  has  hitherto  been  made  to  collect  the  chief 
characteristics  of  this  later  style,"  a  selection  of  the  most  important 
is  placed  below. 

To  save  room,  the  references  and  Aramaean  parallels  are  omitted, 
but  may  easily  be  found  by  referring  to  the  Lexicon.  The  idioms 
which  have  their  parallels  in  the  Chaldee  are  marked  *. 

Later  Words.  —  ^la  *,  bi/ssus,  elsewhere  ui'i;  ^']^Ti* ,  a  castle ; 
y^^,3  *,  «  pi7  ;  T33,  a  treasure;  "pi,  time;  t^^h  ,  noble,  illustrious ; 
cri"! ,  race,  stock,  with  the  verb  brrrin  ,  unoyQa(pia&ai, ;  tsx" ,  (only  in 
Hiphel,)  to  extend;  'y2'3* ,  formerly ,  long  ago ;  ^3*,  cor,  a  measure, 
(compare  ^ttn;)  1i23*,  to  he  just,  successful;  n^rJi  andnisc:,  « 
chamber  in  the  temple;  re'^'l??*,  a  province;  'si^'-iJz  ,  interpretation ; 
nS'7!y?2ri  onb,  for  tiip&n  lanb,  the  show-bread;  n^] ,  to  be  chief ;  tjio, 
forf,"?,  the  end;  3^0,  biO,  and  n^i^iD  ,  a  fool,  folly ;  n::?)  n^5^  *, 
labor,  work;  n"lT3>  *,  for  '^'2'n,  fore  court;  n725' ,  t3S'n?25>^,  in  connection 
with;  trd'S*,  to  think  upon;  Vys.*,  Jiccessity ;  b3p*::=  n^b  ,  to  take, 
receive;  ^nb*,  to  examine,  (in  Piel,  to  expect,  hope;)  ^Xji  ,  n^b,  and 
aa'J*,  to  become  great ;  iib  ,  intelligence,  understanding,  and  b'^^ipn 
to  be  intelligent ;  nsid  ,  to  extol, praise;  'd^ii  with  tsibttJ ,  and  "^itDVilJ  *, 
to  rule ;  lin  ,  a  series ;  "^pln  *,  to  be  or  become  straight;  tjlPtl  *  with 
t)ph  and  J^'^JiStl ,  to  be  strong,  powerful ;  almost  all  the  names  of  the 
months,  e.  g.  ID'^?  *,  "ibos*,  tjnrj*,  ti^t?*. 

The  later  language  often  prefers  certain  peculiar  forms  instead 
of  the  kindred  forms  used  in  the  earlier  period.  It  is  fond  of  sub- 
stantives ending  in  "- ,  y\ ,  and  n^  *  ;  e.  g.  ']'^3a  ,  a  building;  V??  , 
business;  ']ia'rn  ,  understanding  ;  '^i"in';'*,  excellence;  "^ITU'S  ,  success; 
■)i"'5)1*,  striving;  f tjVlJ  *,  f/om«mo?i ;  M^D^Ja *,  M^SO ,  ri^n^S  ,  M5-| , 
&c.  The  following  forms  occur  :  in3  ,  book ;  yn^ ,  time  ;  1^3  ,  al- 
ready;  adjectives  like  1:"^^'^' ,  Ip'^tis* ,  fj^^jiSPi  •  Other  single  examples 
are,  lia'l!^*,  for  ^?23'is  ,  purple;  nss  :=  33  ,  a  garden;  n'13'l  rr -iDT  , 
cause;  ^Tf\^ ,  advantage,  and,  as  an  adverb,  more;   'li^HJa*,  a  word, 

"  LOsckcr  (1.  c.  p.  63)  lias  made  a  small  beginning. 


446  APPENDIX.  [D. 

command;  S'i>a  *,  for  n^l ,  knowledge ;  i<i2"i ,  for  n^::'l ,  ten  thousand; 
pia^D'i'i*,  forlpir^T,  T\yr\*,  for  n%'i,  to  he.  The  modern  language 
substitutes  the  proper  name  S'ld';'    for  the  old  form  S^dirr^ . 

Later  Significations  and  Usages.  —  "nJ^Si*,  to  command;  rii^rnH  , 
the  {other  or  heathen)  lands;  ypri*,  business  ;  ^^"0*,  fortunate,  joy- 
ful;  n?2 ,  what?  without  an  interrogation,  for  the  same,  with  the 
relative  following,  as  a  circuitous  way  of  expressing  a  negation  * ;  "nco  , 
a  learned  man;  n^5>  m  t^p  ,  to  stand  up,  to  come  forward,  with  is, 
to  stand  by,  (in  Hiphel,  ti'^P  andb'ilpn;)  ™3>*,  to  begin  to  speak; 
^5  ^i?5  *,  to  commission,  command;  I^S  *,  io  let  go  free;  pna  and 
npnis ,  salvation,  deliverance ;  la'i  *  =:  "nb  ,  r?<Zer  ;  ti5b  ,  to  give  up,  to 
give  to  God ;  "i^an  =  T^fam  tibiS' »  //te  rfazVy  offering.  Some  of 
them  are  connected  with  later  religious  ideas;  e.  g.  ^m,  prince  of 
angels,  archangel;  "pb ,  bad  angel;  tD'^pip*,  the  holy,  i.e.  the 
angels,  also  for  the  Jews;  t)i50 ,  the  wicked;  and  Q'^''23> ,  godly 
sufferers.  The  last  term  is  applied  to  the  Jews,  the  other  to  the 
heathen  that  oppressed  them. 

Later  Combinations  and  Phrases.  —  Ciiy^ffi  nW^sJ;  ,  Godof  heaven, 
for  the  more  ancient  mii^ns  "»  ;  riffi's^  S^b: ,  to  take  a  wife,  instead  of 
"s  npb;  ri3  'ISS,  to  have  power,  to  he  strong;  iai^^S  "^^^  >  '*^  ^^^^ 
icAa<  sce»is  good  to  him,  as  a  description  of  unlimited  power ; 
"c  mnp  nTO',  <o  restore  the  captive,  instead  of  ^m  ffi'l ,  "lC^5  t3ip)a  , 
/o  restore  to  his  prosperity .     See  above,  No.  2. 

Later  Orthography.  —  The  scriptio plena  is  used  where  it  is  con- 
trary to  analogy ;  e.  g.  l"iTi ,  t3'i3"'"ii^  ,  for  fi'^a^i^a  ,  threshing-sledges  ; 
y^T},  for  in;  "p ,  grace,  in  the  construct;  mnip  *,  nis*,  ni"i*,  for 
la.'ip ,  ni ,  n^ ;  the  interchange  of  s^-  for  n~  at  the  end*,  e.  g.  the  femi- 
nine termination  s^- ,  and  the  alternation  of  the  verbs  s^b  and  nb*  J 
the  quiescent  !*,  e.  g.  in  t3^!!«?3  biis^  ,  for  tiJa  ,  bl?a  ,  &.c. 

Peculiarities  of  Flexion  and  Syntax.  —  The  rejection  or  as- 
sumption of  «  at  the  beginning  of  words;  e.  g.  "in,  for  nni«;;  b,  for 
Yis ,  where  the  i  is  assimilated ;  hence,  bp  ,  for  b  ^TTi* ;  B'^l^on 
(Eccl.  iv.  14,)  for  "Oi^n;  on  the  contrary,  '^b'^^,  for  "nffii ;  Si^ts  ^ 
for  yi-iT*.  Combinations  like  nS^l* ,  for  nan  l^ ;  Cjb?2  ,  for  t\\m-^ 
and  extensions  like  J'^Bin'^  *,  for  sj-^tii-i ;  the  use  of  n  as  a  relative,  of 


D.]  APPENDIX.  447 

inj!!  as  the  indefinite  article ;  of  the  participle,  and  infinitive  for  the 
finite  verb ;  neglect  of  the  old  distinction  between  the  common  and 
the  apocopate  and  paragogic  form  of  the  future,  (hence  ni'^si  and 
S'l'iZJstT,)  and  prefixing  b  to  the  accusative*  and  nominative,  &c. 

The  reception  of  Persian  words  belongs  to  this  period,  and  is  more 
frequent  in  the  Aramaean  parts  of  Scripture. 

§8. 

IDIOMS    OF    PARTICULAR    WRITERS    AND    BOOKS.        PENTATEUCH, 
JOB,    AND    EZEKIEL. 

To  the  foregoing  remarks  on  the  varying  usage  of  the  two  periods, 
some  special  observations  may  be  added,  on  particular  writers  of 
both  periods.  Here  in  conformity  with  our  purpose,  we  limit  our- 
selves to  the  language  in  its  narrowest  sense,  that  is,  to  the  vocabu- 
lary, the  peculiar  forms,  and  inflections 

1.    The  lancruatre  and  usage  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  historical 

GOO  ' 

passages,  agree  perfectly  with  those  of  the  other  historical  books. 
This  has  been  said  above,  and  is  generally  admitted.  However,  the 
Pentateuch  has  some  peculiarities,  s^^in  is  used  as  the  feminine 
pronoun  she,  in  which  sense  j^'^n,  the  common  form,  occurs  only 
eleven  times  in  the  Pentateuch.  15>3  is  also  used  in  the  feminine  for 
a  girl,  while  n^Si  ,  the  common  terra  in  the  other  books,  only  occurs 
once,  (Deut.  xxii.  19.)"  From  Ruth  ii.  21,  it  is  highly  probable 
it  was  used  at  a  later  period.''     Both  these  forms  have  commonly 

«  See  Vater,  I.  c.  p.  668.  The  Masorites  and  the  Samaritan  text  have  erased 
both  of  these  peculiarities  by  substituting  54*^11  and  niS'3  wherever  the  other 
words  occur.  Michaelis  reckons  among  these  peculiarities  the  defective 
writing  of  '^  before  the  suffixes ;  but  the  opposite  may  be  shown  from  the  col- 
lections made  by  Hitler,  Arcan.  Keri,  &c.  p.  46.  The  pronouns  ilS:  and  i5<n 
for  n^S*  and  tlAiHn ,  might,  with  more  justice,  be  cited ;  for  they  often  occur  in 
the  Pentateuch,  and  only  once  out  of  it,  namely,  1  Ch.  xxviii.  8. 

>•  The  same  which  is  expressed,  rn  verse  21,  by  "^b  ^ffiS  Q^'lSSn  65  ,  is  ex- 
pressed in  verses  8,  22,  23,  by  ni'15>3 ,  and  verses  8  and  23  especially  render  it 
necessary  to  understand  the  word  in  a  feminine  sense.  So  the  LXX.,  ntxu  r<ov 
xo^uoicuc.  Dathe,  who  saw  the  necessity  of  giving  it  a  feminine  sense,  very 
uncritically  wished  to  amend  it  by  £11^53.  More  justly  Michaelis,  I.  c.  The 
Masorites  left  it  untouched,  probably  because  some  sense  can  be  made  of  it  as 
it  stands. 


448  APPENDIX.  [d. 

been  considered  as  archaisms;'*  and  they  have  been  used  as  proofs 
of  the  high  antiquity  of  these  books.  This  may  be  conceded,  and 
they  may  be  paralleled  with  the  Latin  forms  Tulli,  terrai,  sena- 
tuis,  dies,  (in  the  genitive,)  which  were  somewhat  more  ancient, 
but  were  used  by  some  writers  along  with  the  common  form. 
From  this  it  follows,  either  that  a  lower  degree  of  antiquity  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  them,  —  which  is  readily  granted,  —  or  that  this  usage  was 
a  peculiarity  of  the  author  or  compiler.  From  the  circumstance  that 
these  idioms  appear  also  in  the  later  book  of  Deuteronomy,  it  is  in 
the  highest  degree  probable  that  a  conforming  hand  has  been  busy 
with  them.  The  example  of  the  Chaldees  shows  that  the  poverty  of 
the  language  is  no  proof  of  high  antiquity;  for,  with  them,  forms 
which  once  were  separated  are  frequently  reunited  ;  thus,  rt^  is  used 
for  nPiS«  and  Jhk  . 

But  a  remarkably  diiferent  style  prevails  in  Deuteronomy.  Its 
most  remarkable  characteristic  consists  in  a  certain  diffuse,  rhetori- 
cal, and  moralizing  tone,  and  the  constant  return  of  favorite  phrases. 
The  usage  approaches  the  modern  form.''  Some  favorite  words  and 
phrases  are,  nilTiS  puT,  to  rely  upon  Jehovah;  bni  =;  li^S ,  great- 
ness, majesty  of  God;  ^^^^^  t^Vi;^  ,  business;  'rj^'ljiD??  2>^n  tTiSS ,  to 
put  away  the  evil  from  the  midst  of  you,  (a  later  for  the  more  usual 
form,  that  soul  shall  he  rooted  out;)  the  accumulated  synonymes, 
Tiiniprri,  Tj^tsBr?;,  Tj^rii^^;  the  rhetorical  form,  heaven  of  heavens, 
God  of  gods,  &c.,  (x.  14,  17;  compare  1  Kings  viii.  27,  2  Ch.  ii.  5.) 
tr\ ,  law,  is  a  word  decidedly  later,  (xxxiii.  2.)  To  judge  from  the 
historical  allusion,  especially  verse  7,  the  whole  chapter  could  not  easi- 
ly have  been  written  before  the  exile.  It  is  particularly  instructive 
to  compare  chap,  xxviii.  and  xxxiii.  with  Levit.  xxvi.  and  Gen.  xlix. 
The  tone  and  usage  agree,  for  the  most  part,  with  certain  of  the 
Prophets.  The  book  has  several  phrases,  almost  peculiar,  in  common 
with  Jeremiah  ;  e.  g.  b  nsitb  iri3 ,  to  give  up,  (xxviii.  25;  compare  Jer 
XV.  4,  xxiv.  9,  xxix.  18,  xxxiv.  17;  the  phrase  is  nowhere  else  except 
2  Ch.  xxix.  8 ;)  ti'^'iT ,  strange  gods,  (xxxii.  16 ;  compare  Jer.  iii.  13,  v. 
19;)  bs^  nns  la-i,  to  teach  apostasy  from  God,  (xiii.  5;  compare  Jer. 
xxviii.  16,  xxix.  32 ;)  bsp ,  to  cut  off  the  young  men,  (xxxii.  25 ;  compare 


»  Mickaelis,  1.  c.  §  31.  Eickkom,  1.  c.  §  406.  On  the  other  hand,  Vater,  I.e. 
p.  616. 

*  See  Vater,  1.  c.  p.  493.  De  Wette,  Diss,  de  Deuteron.  p.  7—10.  [In  the  In. 
troduction,  vol.  ii.,  below,  §  160.] 


D.]  APPENDIX.  449 

Jer.  XV.  7,  xxxvi.  13 — 15,  Lam.  i.  20;)  ^i  r.^'T^'lTlf ,  stubbornness  of 
heart,  (xxix.  18;  compare  Jer.  iii.  17,  vii.  24,  ix.  13,  xi.  8.) 

2.  In  the  book  of  Job,  observation  discloses  to  us  two  phenomena, 
namely,  that  the  usage  and  the  circle  of  ideas  in  this  poem,  on  the 
one  side,  correspond  closely  with  many  of  the  most  excellent  psalms, 
but  in  a  manner  peculiarly  striking  with  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon. 
But,  on  the  other  side,  they  incline  decidedly  to  the  modern  writings 
of  the  second  period.  Besides  this,  many  Arabisms  have  been  ascribed 
to  it ;  to  which  this  reply  may  be  made,  —  that  certainly  there  is  found 
in  the  book  much  that  is  analogous  to  the  Arabic  usage,  or  which 
may  be  explained  from  this  language ;  but  this  is  at  the  same  time 
Hebrew  also,  and  belongs  to  the  poetic  style;  or  it  is  also  Aramsean, 
and  has  been  borrowed  by  the  poet  from  the  Aramaean  popular  lan- 
guage. So  it  appears  in  this  book  not  as  an  Arabism,  but  an  Ara- 
maism.  The  style  is  not  more  conformable  to  the  Arabic  in  this, 
than  in  other  poetic  books  and  passages,  and  it  would  be  utterly  unjust 
to  conclude  from  this  that  the  poet  had  a  direct  intercourse  with 
Arabia  and  its  literature. 

The  above  peculiarities  of  the  language  can  only  be  explained  on 
the  supposition  that  this  book  was  composed  between  the  two  periods, 
that  is,  in  the  exile :  other  circumstances  render  this  supposition  proba- 
ble." The  following  words  and  significations  are  entirely  peculiar  : 
•^tpa  ,  for  heart,  breast;  '^i'lis  ,  the  lower  world ;  'ii^'i ,  for  the  tvork  of 
God;  Tjri ,  for  the  organ  of  speech,  not  that  of  taste, — van  inserted  be- 
tween sentences  to  be  compared  together,  (v.  7,  xii.  11 ;  compare  Prov. 
XXV.  25,  et  al. ;)  ninsiti ,  jjroo/s,  warnings;  fTflia^iti,  deliverance,  wis- 
dom; rri^antl ,  prudent  direction,  counsel;  3!pFi ,  to  strike  hands,  as  a 
pledge  of  suretiship.  The  terms  father,  brother,  and  sister,  are  used 
metaphorically,  xvii.  14,  xxx.  29 ;  compare  Prov.  vii.  4,  xviii.  9. 

"  See  Bernstein,  in  Keil  and  Tzschirners,  Anal.  iii.  37,  sqq.  See  Rosenmtiller, 
Prol.  ad  Jobum,  p.  32 — 34.  See  Jerome,  Prsef.  in  Dan.  Leclerc,  Sentimens,  &c., 
p.  183. 

Parallel  Phrases  and  Expressions.  — 

Job  V.  4.  Prov.  xxii.  23. 

XV.  7.  viii.  24—28. 

xviii.  5,  6,  and  xxi.  14.  iii.  8,  xv.  20,  xvii.  22. 

xxi.  17.  xiii.  9,  xx.  20,  xxiv.  20. 

—  xxiv.  2.  xxii.  28,  xxiii.  10. 

xxviii.  28.  i.  7. 

18.  iii.  15. 

4,  5.  XXX.  4. 

VOL.    I.  57 


450  APPENDIX.  [d. 

Later  Words  and  Significations.  —  yjirn ,  name  of  an  evil  angel; 
i.  7,  ii.  2,  sqq. ;  compare  1  Ch.  xxi.  1.  n35  ,  to  begin;  iii.  2,  xxxiv.  1. 
ftiDi:?ia ,  thoughts,  applied  to  7iight  visions,  dreams ;  iv.  13,  xx.  2 ; 
compare  xxxiii.  15,  Dan.  ii.  29,  30,  iv.  16.  n'l:?'^  ,  caiise;  v.  8.  ns?2  , 
to  arrange,  appoint;  vii.  3.  CS" ,  like  as ;  ix.  2G,  xxi.  8 ;  compare  Eccl. 
ii.  16,  vii.  11.  "i?:!* ,  to  command;  ix.  7.  (See  Lexicon,  sub  voce, 
No.  3.)  ri)3  ,  quodcunque;  xiii.  13;  a  circumlocutory  form  of  negation, 
xvi.  6,  xxxi.  1.  '^'2i$  ,  to  conceive ;  xxi.  10.  Ypri ,  study,  business  ;  xxi. 
21,  xxii.  3.  ^T3  ,  to  decide,  determine,  "^ik ,  not ;  xxii.  30.  ni^  =  ^35  ; 
xxviii.  8.  fii3>"Ti'i ,  the  icise;  xxxiv.  2;  compare  Eccl.  ix.  11.  ^pt3 ,  to 
command;  xxxiv.  13,  xxxvi.  23;  compare  2  Ch.  xxxvi.  23,  Ezra  i.  2. 
I^y^a ,  icork;  xxxiv.  25  ;  compare  Dan.  iv.  34;  xxxvi.  2  is  entirely 
Aramaean.  I'^X'T  i]5-1^3,  indidge  me  a  little,  n'l'i^  =:S4'l>3  ,  Lord; 
xxxvi.  22." 

Later  Phrases.  —  ix.  12,  Who  says  to  them,  What  doest  thou  ?  com- 
pare xxi.  22,  Eccl.  viii.  4  ;  still  stronger,  Dan.  iv.  35.  C^^o  r\^^  ;  xiv.  9  ; 
compare  "il3  rrrn ,  Dan.  iii.  27.  fiibisa ,  in  the  midst  of  peace,  for 
suddenly ;  xv.  21 ;  compare  rTliuJa  ,  Dan.  viii.  25,  xi.  21,  24.  i^a  s^i  , 
not  by  the  hand,  (of  men  ;)  xxxiv.  20  ;  compare  "I'l  &tj*p  ,  Dan.  viii.  25, 
and  X"^^^  S<b ,  ii.  34,  35.  ill5w  Jii^Jt  b'c;;  "^S ,  when  God  shall  draw 
his  soul  out  (of  his  body ;)  xxvii.  8 ;  compare  the  image  (Dan.  vii.  15) 
of  the  body  as  a  sheath  for  the  soul.* 

Later  Orthography  and  Grammatical  Forms. — yi*!,  for3>"i;  vi. 
27.  t3'n^,fort:{*'i;  xxxix.  9, 10.  f  ffii'] ;  viii.  8.  Q^t^)3  ;  xxxi.  6.  VC  >  fo*" 
y^  and  'p ;  xli.  4.  m  ,  for  'iirii;  xix.  29.  V^'?^  '^??i?)  ^or  "b  ^^l^p ;  xviii. 
1.    ^3?9  ,  ^nD?3  ,  for  ii3?a)3 . 

3.  Ezekiel  also  stands  on  the  borders  of  the  two  periods.  His 
book  belongs  to  the  scanty  class  of  books,  that,  from  beginning  to 
end,  preserve  a  unity  of  tone,  distinguished  by  favorite  expressions 
and  peculiar  phrases,  by  which  all  suspicion  of  spuriousness  is 
removed  from  particular  chapters.  He  shares  many  peculiar  terms 
and  Chaldaic  expressions  with  his  contemporary,  Jeremiah.  But 
they  were  more  numerous  in  Ezekiel,  and  among  all  the  writers  of 

«  Where  no  parallels  are  given,  see  the  Lexicon. 
«■  Buztorf's  Le-x.  p.  1307. 


U.]  APPENDIX.  451 

the  Old  Testament,  perhaps  he  has  proportionally  the  greatest  num- 
ber of  grammatical  anomalies  and  inaccuracies." 

4.  Of  all  the  books  of  the  second  period,  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes 
is  tinged  most  deeply  with  the  Aramasan  dye,  and  the  greatest  part  of 
its  favorite  expressions,  that  constantly  recur,  are  peculiar  to  it. 
Some  approach  very  nearly  to  the  usage  of  the  Talmud. '' 


"  On  the  peculiarities  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  see  Eichkorn,  1.  c.  §  536, 
et  sqq.,  and  below,  vol.  ii.  §  217 — 224. 

Ezekiel  has,  in  common  with  Jeremiah,  the  form  "^ITIS* ,  "^ribtoS  ,  for  Fl5|! ,  Pl^tip  , 

(see  Hiller,  1.  c.  p.  381 ;)  the  suffix  "^^  ,  i^"!  - ,  for  1j ,  'Tj'l-;  the  form  iriis,  and 

DtliS ,  for  'iflS^ ,  and  tfiii :  the  latter  occurs  in  the  books  of  Kings. 

These  are  some  of  \i\s  favorite  expressions.  —  UHS  "^13,  son  of  man,  as  title  of  a 
prophet;  ii.  1, 18,  iii.  1, 17,  et  al.  The  hand  of  Jehovah  came  upon  me;  i.  3,  iii.  14, 
22,xxxvii.l;  comp.xi.5,  xxxiii.32.  Behold,  I  am  against  you;  xiii.8,xxi.8,  xxxiv. 
10;  comp.  V.  8.  Tobreakthestaff  of  bread  ;iv. 16, v. 16, x'lv. 12.  bl233>a ,  axuf  5a/.ov 
in  its  different  applications ;  iii.  20,  vii.  14,  xiv.  3,  7,  xviii.  30,  xxi.  28,  xliv.  12, 
et  al. 

I"  E.  g.  the  prevalent  use  of  T^ ,  for  ^m ,  of  PU3,  for  ^  IffiX;  viii.  17.  "^^^S? , 
office,  affair,  thing.  niT^^S*,  the  capper  berry;  xii.  9.  "^tS  ,  to  weigh,  prove; 
xii.  9.  yz  y^in ,  besides;  ii.  25.  (See  Mishna,  Tr.  Kilaim,  ii.  5,  vol.  i.  p.  117,  of 
Surenhusius's  ed.;  note  the  Chaldee,  yo  "l3.)  Hi'^n,  to  enjoy  sensually;  ii.  25. 
*>»,  alas!  iv.  10,  x.  16,  &.c. 

The  following  are  .4ra7»aj5ms. —  ^^K;  vi.G.  ID  ~  tl^  ,  that  which.  T~n?2;  i.  9, 
iii.  15,  22,  vi.  10,  vii.  24.    nn3 ;  i.  11,  ii.  12, 16.   DaDD ,  word,  thing. 

Modern  Hebraisms  and  favorite  Expressions.  —  n*l"l  tTUT,  vain  effort; 
i.  14,  ii.  11, 17,  26,  iv.  4,  vi.  9;  also  mn  ^i'^^'l;  i.  17,  iv.  16.  UJJgUJn  nnri;  i.  3, 
9,  14,  ii.  18,  19,  22,  iv.  1,  3,  7,  15,  et  al.;  and  Q'^tiffin  nnp;  i.  14,  ii.  3,  iii.  1. 
ii)ay,  pains-taking,  trouble;  iv.  4,  with  the  verb.  ^>33>  ^JD^;  ii.  11,  18,  19,  20. 
i\byW  D'^ipS'tan,  the  things  that  go  on  there;  ii.  17,  iv.  3.  b53>;  iii-  11,  per- 
haps  the  same  as  xua^iog,  in  the  N.  T.  sense  of  world.  Jjiail  B'^i^ri  bSilj  &c. 
Nouns  in  M   and  "ji  are  frequent.    See  above,  §  7. 


452  APPENDIX.  [d. 


^9. 

OLDER  PASSAGES  WROUGHT  OVER  AGAIN  BY  LATER  WRITERS. 
PHILOLOGICO-CRITICAL  RELATION  OF  THE  PARALLEL  PASSAGES 
IN    THE    BOOKS    OF    SAMUEL,    KINGS,    AND    CHRONICLES. 

1.  It  was  remarked  above,  (§6,  3,)  that  in  the  productions  of  the 
second  period,  the  language  is  commonly  easier,  more  flowing,  and 
intelligible,  than  in  the  more  ancient  compositions.  The  obvious 
reason  of  this  is,  that  a  language  which  has  already  gradually 
ceased  to  be  the  language  of  life  can  no  longer  be  used  with  that 
originality  and  freedom  which  led  to  hard  and  difficult  constructions; 
and,  therefore,  it  will  be  obliged  to  resort  to  easy  construction 
and  greater  clearness.  This  remark,  and  the  fact  that  some  expres- 
sions seemed  too  hard,  or  not  intelligible  or  correct  enough,  for  later 
times,  is  very  easily  established  by  recurrence  to  those  parallel  pas- 
sages where  later  writers  transferred  sentences  from  an  older  text 
into  their  own  works,  and  wrought  them  over  anew.  In  the  latter, 
the  difficulties  and  hard  constructions  of  the  former  are  commonly 
removed.'* 

2.  The  most  instructive  example  of  this  kind  is  afforded  by  the 
parallel  passages  in  the  books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles.'' 
The  authors  of  the  books  of  Chronicles  may  have  had  either  our 
books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  before  them,  or,  at  least,  the  text  of  these 
books  in  a  different  arrangement ;  but  this  is  certain,  that  the  Chroni- 
cles give  us  a  recasting  of  the  parallel  passages  in  the  books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings,  which  was  made  several  centuries  after  tlie 
original.  In  Chronicles,  not  only  are  later  expressions  and  orthog- 
raphies substituted  for  the  earlier,  but  difficult  and  rare  forms  are 
exchanged  for  the  common  ;  hard  words  are  explained,   and  other 


»  Isa.  XV.  5,  (comp.  Jer.  xlviii.  5,)  where,  for  the  more  difficult  I^JJ^i ,  there  is 
a  quid  pro  quo,  15>?3m  5  Isa.  xvi.  6,  7,  (comp.  Jer.  xlviii.  29—31,)  T£:i« ,  for 
iffiiffiH;  Num.  xxiv.  17,  Jer.  xlviii.  45,  np^ip  ,  for  the  more  difficult  "iplp ; 
the  common  form  of  the  singular,  nitS  ,  instead  of  the  construct  state  of  the 
dual,   ir>i&  .     See  Rosenmnller,  on  Isa.  xvi.  17.     See  De  Wette,  Com.  on  Ps.  p.  25. 

'"  The  character  of  this  philological  recasting  of  old  materials  —  with  which  we 
are  alone  concerned  at  this  time  — is  parallel,  in  some  respects,  with  the  histori- 
f-al  change  of  which  De  Wette  treats,  Beitrage,  vol.  i.  p.  42. 


D.]  APPENDIX.  433 

difficulties,  hardnesses,  and  the  like,  are  so  softened  and  illustrated 
that  the  readings  of  the  reviser  often  have  the  appearance  of  glosses." 


»  1.  Later  Orthography  and  Forms.  —  m^b^  ,    for  nib'2?a  ;  2  Ch.  vii.  18, 

:  -  T  T  J    -  ' 

1  Kings  ix.  5.    pia^O'l'n ,  for  pL'^^;  1  Ch.  xviii.  5,  6.     t3''72"in,  for  tl'iTSlns^n; 

2  Ch.  xxii.  5,  2  Kings  viii.  29;  especially  the  prevalent  scrijjtio  plena,  e.  g. 
T'l'l ,  tl'iJanabs* ,  tD^il^^^rn  ,  &c.  irr^JS! ,  for  ir:!< ;  l  Ch.  xi.  31 ,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  29. 
tii3^'li>a  for  QiaJT^;  lCh.xxi.23,  2 Sam.  xxiv.  12.  b'^np'],  for  bnp!?;  2  Ch. 
V.  2,  I  Kings  viii.  1.  S^pSil  and  tl'iip^T  ;  2  Ch.  vi.  10,  11,  1  Kings  viii.  20,  21. 
Here,  also,  belongs  IDJ^i^  ,  2  Ch.  xxiv.,  for  ^aNjirT^ ,  2  Kings  xii.,  and  nb^i;! 
1D3b5 ,  1  Ch.  v.  6,  26,  2  Ch.  xxviii.  20,  for  'ipJ^bEl  tib^n  . 

2.  Words  of  the  later  Usage,  which  were  substituted  for  the  ear- 
lier.—  ns^a,  a  corpse,  for  11113;  1  Ch.  x.  12,  1  Sam.  xxxi.  12.  2  Sam.  vi.  IG, 
David  is  said  to  be  13  liS5<  ^^3-1,  clothed  icith  a  linen  shirt;  1  Ch.  xv.  27, 
y^D  '2i^'$)Zi2  ;  but,  as  it  is  often  done  in  glosses,  the  words  of  the  original  are 
also  left.     Here,  also,  belongs  nilOB^,  for  nil^"!  ,  floats;  1  Kings  v.  23. 

3.  Grammatical  Glosses,  e.asier  Readings,  and  designed  Improve- 
ments.—Jt^nTD ,  for  "inja;  1  Ch.  xi.  2,  2  Sam.  v.  2.   D%ib«n  Tibn,  for  ^ir^bn 

tl'inb!!^;  1  Ch.  xvii.  21,  2  Sam.  vii.  23.  (Here  t3">nbN  is  not  to  be  construed 
with  the  plural.  See  the  emendation  of  the  Samaritan,  on  Gen.  xx.  13,  xxxi. 
53,  XXXV.  7,   Ex.  xxii.  9.)     K^'^l ,  for  the  anomalous  i^'s'l ;  2  Ch.  x.  12,  1  Kings 

xii.  12.    Tjj'T,  and  b3>Fl1,  for  the  rarer  form  T\'^^^  nbyPil  5    2  Ch.  xviii.  34,  35, 

1  Kings  xxii.  34,  35,  2  Ch.  xxi.  9,  2  Kings  viii.  21.  nSID  ,  for  n-iiO  ;  2  Ch.  xxi. 
9,  2  Kings  viii.  21.     tm)2  ,  for  ta^^nrh  ;  2  Ch.  x.xiii.  1,  2  Kings  xi.  4. 

4.  Exegetical  Glosses  and  Explications  of  the  older  Text.  —  2  Sam. 
V.  18,  22,  ^ffltD3';iT  ,  they  extended  themselves;  1  Ch.  xiv.  9,  13,  ItOIISi:;;^]  .  —  2  Sam. 
vi.  16;  13"ip73l  T7Q?3 ,  leaping  and  dancing,  (2.  anai  Xtyofieva;)  1  Ch.  xv.  29, 
t^pW  "Il;5'l>p.— 2Sam.  vii.  5,  n^^n  nSttll;  1  Ch.  xvii.  4,  .TOri  ni^S!!  iib  • 
(Right !  forthe  question  contains  a  refusal.)  —  xxiii.  8,  ^la^^H  '  ^DilJ> ;  2  Ch.  xi. 
11,  irTiirr  tl^i;  '^"^^^  ,  he  threw  his  spear,  (a.n  explanation  for  xxiii.  18.)  —  xxiii. 
19;  i^n  ,  in  truth.  (This  is  entirely  wanting  in  1  Ch.  xi.  21.)  — xxiv.  12,  "laii* 
'TJibS'  btoiS ,  /  lay  before  thee ;  1  Ch.  xxi.  10,  'Jj'^bS  tltoi  '^354 .  —  1  Kings  viii.  7, 
ilSD'^l ,  they  covered ;  2  Ch.  v.  8,  siSS";!] .  —  viii.  30, 31 ,  34, 39,  43,  45,  'D'^'qtsr^  bs  > 
inheaven;  2  Ch.  vi.  21,  sqq.,  ti'iJp'Cn  '])2,fro7n  heaven.  —  x.  18,  t&^fa  ,  adorned; 

2  Ch.  ix.  17,  -lints.  — X.  26,  35;i  ni!A?a  ^^"^^  Db«,1400  harnessed  chariots; 
2  Ch.  ix.  25,  4000  span  of  horses  and  chariots.  (The  gloss  is  correct;  the  number 
only  is  an  exaggeration.)  —  x.  28.     The  most  difficult  part  of  the  verse  is  omitted 


454  APPENDIX.  [d. 

3.  Among  the  examples  of  this  kind,  there  are  many  which 
render  it  plain  that  the  language  was  becoming  extinct  at  the  time 
of  the  Chronicler,  and,  here  and  there,  difficulties  prevented  the  older 
text  from  beinw  understood." 


in  the  parallel.  —  xii.  G,  "^US  fiS  n>33>,  to  stand  before  and  serve  someone;  2  Ch. 
X.  6,  'iDbJ)  ^?23> .  —  xxii.  32,  li^ij?  >11D'^1 ,  they  turned  aside  to  him  ;  2  Ch.  xviii. 
31,  1iis;^3D';i1.— SKingsxv.  36,  XX.20,  xxi.  17,  xxiii.  28,  tD^^nW^  CH  si^n  , 
lo,  this  is  written;  (the  Chronicler  always  has  ti'^^^nS  Q3n;)  2  Ch.  xxvii.  7, 
xxxii.  32,  xxiii.  18,  xxxv.  27.  (The  text  and  gloss  are  both  in  xxiv.  27,  "n  S^^H .) 
—  xvi.  3,  BNa  'T^;!,??!!;  2  Ch.  xxviii.  3,  "a  ^^l^liT .  —  xxi.  3,  ^"rs  ni?2'3n 
"ptn  "725|! ,  the  high  (altars)  which  Hezekiah  destroyed ;  2  Ch.  xxxiii.  3,  "l^riD  ; 
(because  nasjt  is  usually  applied  only  to  persons.)  —  xxi.  8,  '^''3l^b  B'^DS  i^b 
(1)0154  "I^O    ^K^ilS'l'    33'1    il!)*! ,  /  will  no  more  cause  the  feet  of  Israel  to  wander 

afar  from  the  land;  2  Ch.  xxxiii.  8,  rT^IKH  ^^^O     1'^Onb,  to   drive 

them,  &c. 

Other  names  are  pretty  often  substituted  for  the  old  geographical  names. 

5.  Euphemisms.  — 2  Sam.  x.4,  CrT^ninm  15;  1  Ch.  xix.  4,  WiaeTan  15'. 

6.  Conjecture  upon  a  difficult  Text,  or  on  a  Text  not  understood. — 
2  Sara.  vi.  5,  Q'^lDiia  "^Sy^Sa,  all  sorts  of  fir-tree  {instruments;)  1  Ch.  xiii. 

8,  Q'^liTSa .  —  vi.  7,  btL\llb3>;  Vulgate,  propter  temeritatem;    1   Ch.  xiii.  10, 

iT"  nblD  ITZii*  ^2? .  —  viii.  3,  il"!  a'^ffiflb ,  so  as  to   extend  his  power  again ; 

I   Ch.  xviii.  3,    in  SiSni  .  —  X.  8,  l^ffin  ntiB ,   at  the  opening  of  the  gate ; 

the   Chronicle    I^JJn  HflQ ,  1  Ch.  xix.  9. 

The  authors  of  the  Keri  attempted  to  make  similar  corrections.  So  the  read- 
ings in  Chronicles  often  agree  with  the  Keri  in  Samuel  and  Kings.  The  latter 
may  have  been  borrowed  from  the  former;  but  sometimes  they  contain,  perhaps, 
an  explanatory  reading  older  than  the  Chronicler,  which  he  has  adopted. 

°  This  will  appear  the  more  clearly  from  some  examples  where  the  Chroni- 
cler, instead  of  a  gloss,  which  is  probably  false,  upon  a  difficult  text,  gives  a  con- 
jecture, or  a  quid  pro  quo.  1  Sam.  xxxi.  13 ;  Jjia'^n .  Although  learned  rabbins 
{Jona,  MicMal  Jophi,  on  Gen.  xxi.  33,  1  Sam.  xxii.  6)  justly  compare  the  Arabic 
(j3\ ,  tamariscu^,  yet  this  is  one  of  those  words,  the  signification  of  which,  it 
seems,  early  became  doubtful  or  was  lost.  Hence  arises  the  different  render- 
ings of  this  word  in  the  versions,  and  in  the  parallel  passages  referred  to. 
Most  of  them  call  it  tree,  or  wood,  using  the  general  term ;  thus  Jlquila,  StrSQtoru  ; 
Sym.  (fvrov;  Vulgate,  nemus ;  which  also  is  defended  by  Celsius,  Hierobotan, 
i.  p.  535,  sqq.  Others  call  it  some  special  kind  of  tree ;  e.  g.  the  Syriac,  amygda- 
lus ;   Thcodotion,  r'u?  Sqv?.     So,  in  1  Ch.  x.  12,  il^xn  is  used  therefor;  it  is  a 


D.]  APPENDIX.  455 

4.  At  the  first  glance,  it  may  surprise  us  that  these  writers  could 
have  had  an  imperfect  and  uncritical  acquaintance  with  a  language 

well-known  quid  pro  quo,  put  for  a  difficult  word,  and  is  certainly  neither  a 
correct  gloss,  nor  a  statement  derived  from  another  source,  as  Mickaelis  thinks. 
Supp.  ad  Lex.  Heb.  p.  136.  [See  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  and  Furst,  Concord, 
sub  voce.] 

2  Sam.  V.  17  ;  when  David  heard  this,  nn^-JSn  bs*  "IT'"! ,  he  drew  doionto  the 
hilltop.  Instead  of  this  very  obscure  word,  the  Chronicler  has  SlliDpp  5^|2;iT  > 
(1  Ch.  x'lv.  18,)  which  by  no  means  gives  the  true  sense  of  the  old  reading.  See 
Be  JVette,  Beit.  vol.  i.  p.  67. 

2  Sam.  v.  24;  y^firi  tK,  then  bestir  thyself.  (Compare  flin,  diligent, 
eager.)  This  sense  of  tiie  word  may  have  ceased  to  be  common  at  an  early 
period,  and  therefore  the  translators  could  only  guess  at  the  meaning.  Seventy, 
xaxffiijaij  TCQog  avrovg.  Vulgate,  tunc  inibis  proelium.  Chald.  Syr.  confortaberis, 
sumes  animos.  So,  in  the  parallel,  1  Ch.  xiv.  15,  it  is  n^nb?23  552271  TS  > 
which  some  erroneously  regard  as  the  correct  explanation. 

2  Sam.  viii.  1 ;  David  took  n?3Hn  3ri?3  tlS! ,  the  bridle,  i.e.  the  metropolis,  from 
the  hand  of  the  Philistines,  i.  e.  brought  them  under  his  dominion.  See  the  Ara- 
bic phrases  in  Schultens,  Job  xxx.  11.  In  1  Ch.  xviii.  1,  for  this  we  read,  ln3 
rr^riilln^ ,  the  city  Galk  and  the  circumjacent  villages;  but  no  interpreter  has 
succeeded  m  showing  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  original  term.  See  Daihe'^ 
Glass,  Phil.  sac.  p.  783. 

2  Sam.  viii.  18;  the  sons  of  David  were  called  ft'^inb  ,  priests,  which,  proba- 
bly, is  to  be  understood  as  meaning  unlevitical  priests  of  the  king's  house  and 
palace,  who  are  obviously  upper  officers  of  the  king.  (Compare  verse  17  with 
1  Sam.  xxi.  2,  xxii.  9.)  The  Chronicler,  who  would  endure  no  unlevitical  priest, 
(compare  1  Sam.  i.  11  with  1  Ch.  vi.  18,)  explains  it  by  '^bm  T^b  tJiaizJi^'in ; 
1  Ch.  xviii.  17.  So  the  Chaldee  on  Gen.  xli.  45,  Ps.  ex.  4,  translates  "^ni  by 
S^Sn ,  chief,  which  can  hardly  be  defended.  Here  the  interpreter  was  led  by 
one  of  his  preponderating  opinions.     De  IVette,  1.  c.  81,  82. 

2  Sam.  xxiii.  11 ;  a  piece  of  ground  full  of  b'^'^HS ,  lentiles.  1  Ch.  xi.  13; 
C'l'liS'is ,  barley.  If  this  is  not  a  (false)  gloss  for  the  former  word,  then  it  is  a 
quid  pro  quo,  a  substitution  of  the  known  for  the  unknown.  So  the  Samaritan 
in  Gen.  xxv.  34,  alters  this  term,  which  he  did  not  understand,  into  C^ID  TS  t 
which  the  Samaritan  translator,  in  a  manner  unintelligible  to  me,  renders 
tJTJD  "IIP. 

1  Kings  X.  22 ;  a  ship  of  Tarshisk,  (oTl3"i^  i^Jt ,)  i.  e.  a  great  sea-ship, 
brought,  every  three  years,  gold  and  silver,  ivory,  apes,  and  peacocks,  (as  it  seems 
from  ix.  28)  from  Ophir.  According  to  1  Kings  xxii.  49,  the  ships  of  Tarshisk 
set  out  from  Ezion-Geber  to  go  to  Ophir.  The  Chronicler,  who  did  not  know 
that  a  ship  of  Tarshisk  meant  any  large  merchant  vessel  in  general,  thus  explains 


456  APPENDIX.  [d. 

which  had  not  then  entirely  ceased  to  be  vernacular ;  but  this  will 
astonish  us  less  when  we  consider  that  a  graramatico-critical  knowl- 
edge of  the  mother  tongue  and  its  etymologies  was  not  sought  for 
among  the  ancients;  at  least  not  so  long  as  the  language  was  a  living 
one.  Cicero's  and  Varro's  unlucky  etymologies  of  Latin  words  are 
well  known.  And  we  must  place  in  the  same  category  a  number 
of  attempts  at  etymology  that  occur  in  the  old  books,  which  can  no 
more  be  justified,  or  admitted  as  correct,  than  they  can  be  charged 
on  their  authors  as  great  faults."     Such  etymologies  are  forced,  in 


the  former  expression,  —  ships  that  go  to  Tarshish,  C^UJItl  tTlilbn  tli'^SSi 
and,  in  both  passages,  makes  them  go  to  Tarshish ;  but,  in  the  second  pas- 
sage, where  Oph'tr  is  expressly  named,  he  omits  it,  to  avoid  the  contradiction. 
See  Bredow,  Untersucli,  &c.  ii.  260 — 303.  1  Kings  x.  13;  Solomon  gave  the 
queen  of  Sheba  all  that  she  wished  and  desired,  besides  what  he  gave  her, 
!l?2bU3  'nb'Srt  T^3  ,  as  it  became  King  Solomon,  i.  e.  a  present  worthy  of  King 
Solomon.  The  Chronicler,  probably  misunderstanding  the  last  expression, 
gives  this  inappropriate  term,  —  besides  that  ichich  she  brought  to  the  king, 
tjb^b  ns^'^^rt  ^idx  nsb>3  ■  l  Kings  X.  14  ;  kings  of  the  allies,  or  auxiliaries, 
'liSn  "^^b'a;  2  Ch.  ix.  14;  for  this,  n^y  iqb>3  .  This  will  scarcely  suffice  in 
this  place,  where  only  Solomon's  subjects  seem  to  be  spoken  of.  (See  Lexicon, 
sub  voce.)  2  Kings  x.xii.  13, 17;  the  somewhat  unusual  expression,  ^tjlzt]  HriSTS, 
my  anger  is  kindled,  which  the  (Chronicler  (2  Ch.  xxxiv.  21)  expresses  by  my  anger 
is  poured  out,  the  more  usual  form  "ntin  ;  but  so  unsuitable  in  the  last  place,  that 
he  leaves  out  the  addition  —  and  shall  not  be  quenched.  He  could  not  have  under- 
stood the  etymological  sense  of  the  latter. —  verse  13,  ^3"'5?3>  i^n3n~iS;; 
according  to  all  uihich  is  prescribed  for  us  (in  it;)  2  Ch.  xxxiv.  21,  la^tlSn  ~  b^^ 
n^n  ^£3i ,  according  to  all  which  is  written  in  the  book.  I  conjecture  the  ex- 
pression bs   i13 ,  pre-scribed,  was  unknown  to  the  later  writer. 

"  Gen.  V.  29 ;  he  called  his  name  nil ,  for  he  said,  This  shall-  console  us, 
(l3>2ro';' .)— xix.  37;  :3Hi>3  is  explained  by  SS5?3  ,  from  thefatker.  —  xxVi.  8,  14  ; 
the  name  M'^'l'^^a  iT^^i^S  is  so  played  upon  that  we  see  the  author  wished  to 
derive  it  from  nt^'l  ,  as  it  is  clearly  done  in  2  Ch.  iii.  2.  Gen.  xxix.  32 ;  it  is 
said  of  the  etymology  of  Reuben,  plJi^ ,  (i.  e.  behold  a  son!)  she  called  his 
name  Reuben,  for  she  said,  "ii^JS  nirT^  HH"! ,  Jehovah  has  looked  upon  my 
affliction.  Ex.  ii.  22;  UTIJ'ia  is  explained  by  "13,  a  stranger,  and  no  respect 
seems  paid  to  tlD  .     See  Vater,  1.  c.  p.  666. 

Compare  the  etymologies  of  Janus,  Ovid,  Fast.  i.  125,  sqq. ;  of  Maius,  ibid. 
V.  1 — 110  ;  Lemuria,  v.  481 ;  Jlgonalia,  i.  320,  sqq. 


D.]  APPEiNDIX.  457 

the  highest  degree,  where  the  historian  connects  certain  proper 
names  with  mythical  stories  with  which  they  originally  had  no  con- 
nection, or,  in  general,  when  he  uses  them  to  serve  the  end  of  his- 
torical myths.  The  Greek  and  Roman  poets  and  writers  of  myths, 
in  similar  cases,  are  bold  in  the  highest  degree. 

*§>  10. 

EXTINCTION    OF    THE    LANGUAGE. 

1.  In  the  last  period,  the  relation  between  the  written  and  the 
popular  languages,  which  were  cognate  and  contemporary,  may  be 
illustrated,  more  or  less,  by  the  analogy  between  the  ancient  and  mod- 
ern Greek,  the  Slavic  and  the  Russian,  and  even  between  the  German 
popular  dialect  and  the  written  language  of  Germany  :  but,  in  this 
latter  instance,  the  written  language  is  the  modern.  The  last  com- 
parison is  the  more  suitable,  inasmuch  as  the  less  careful  German 
writers  —  in  particular,  the  Swiss  and  Swabian  —  sometimes  permit 
the  peculiarities  of  the  popular  language  to  shine  through,  here  and 
there.  The  example  of  the  German  nation  also  shows  how  a  dialect 
(the  High  German)  can  be  pretty  well  understood  without  speaking  it. 

We  cannot  accurately  determine  how  long  the  old  Hebrew 
remained  a  living  language;  whether  it  continued  a  long  time  in 
some  sections,  among  the  "more  respectable"  and  educated;  in 
short,  the  more  and  the  less  of  the  subject  cannot  be  distinctly 
ascertained. 

This  only  is  certain,  that,  in  Nehemiah's  time,  the  people  still 
spoke  Hebrew ;  that,  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  the 
Maccabees,  the  Hebrew  was  still  written,"  though  the  Aramaean 
was  the  prevalent  language ;  and,  on  the  contrary,  about  this  time, 
and  shortly  after  Alexander  the  Great,  even  the  learned  Jews  found 
it  hard  to  understand  difficult  passages  of  the  old  writings,  because 
the  language  had  ceased  to  be  a  living  speech.''  The  reign  of  the 
Seleucidae,  and  the  new  influence  of  an  Aramaean  people,  seem 
gradually  to  have  destroyed  the  last  traces  of  it. 


"  Compare  Daniel  and  the  coins  of  the  Maccabaic  age. 

*  [See  instances  where  the  writers  of  the  books  of  Chronicles  misunderstood 
the  more  ancient  documents,  Samuel  and  Kings,  in  §  189 — 192,  below.] 

VOL.  I.  38 


458  APPENDIX.  [d. 

2.  The  Tiilnmdists  and  the  Jewish  grammarians,"  Ephodaeus, 
Elias  Levita,  and  Kimchi,  followed  by  Hottinger,  Walton,  Buxtorf, 
and  others,  make  an  exaggerated  and  incorrect  statement,  when 
they  say  that  in  the  exile  the  Jews  had  completely  forgotten  the  old 
language,  and  immediately  after  that  period,  that  the  priests  and 
literary  men  had  to  acquire  it  as  a  learned  language.  They  all  rely, 
mainly,  as  it  seems,  on  a  false  explanation  of  Neh.  viii.  8.  There 
it  is  said,  "  And  they  [the  priests  and  Levites]  read  in  the  book,  in 
the  Law  of  the  Lord,  m'Tis^p ,  (verbally,  or  truly,  accurately,)  and 
gave  the  sense,  and  explained  what  was  read."  The  parallel  passage 
in  Ezra  iv.  18,  shows  that  m'^iD^p ,  the  word  on  which  this  question 
turns,  must  have  this  meaning.  There  the  king  of  Persia  says, 
"  The  letter  which  you  sent  me  has  been  read  before  me,  id"ii!:72  , 
verballi/,^'  word  for  word}  Here  we  have  a  reading  of  the  Scripture, 
word  for  word,  accompanied  with  explanations  of  whatever  was 
difficult,  and  probably  with  a  religious  application  of  it,  all  in  the 
same  language. 

The  Jews  explain  the  word  differently.  They  understand  m"iic?3 
in  the  rabbinical  sense  of  "  explained,"  "  with  explanations,"  and 
suppose  it  refers  to  a  translation  into  the  Chaldee  language."  But 
even  in  the  rabbinical  writings,  the  word  never  means  translation 
into  another  language ;  and  besides,  it  is  expressly  said  (Neh.  xiii, 
23,  24)  that  the  Jews  spoke  Hebrew  at  that  time.'' 


°  Gemara,  Tr.  Megilla,  3,  c.  1.  Nedarim,  37,  2.  EphodcEus,  Gram.  c.  7. 
Elias,  PraBf.  ad  Metherg.  Kimchi,  Praef.  ad  Michlol.  Hottinger,  Thes.  Phil.  p. 
279.     Walton,  Proleg.  iii.  §  24.     Buxtorf,  Diss.  Philol.  p.  157. 

*  See  same  use  of  the  word,  Lev.  xxiv.  21,  Num.  xii.  34.  Buxtorf,  Le.\'. 
Sp3 .     Ex.  xxviii.  11.     Isa.  viii.  11. 

"^  Bambach,  Clericus,  and  Dathe,  follow  this  opinion.  The  latter  thinks  the 
word  refers  to  a  translation  into  the  Persian  language,  in  Ezra  iv.  18  ;  but  this 
is  expressed  by  fia'in ,  (Ezra  iv.  7,  18.) 

<*  See  Bertholdt,  p.  992.  The  author  of  the  book  Cosri,  pt.  iii.  p.  15,  thinks 
a  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language  and  law  was  preserved  in  the  hearts  of 
priests  and  judges.  Even  Walton  thinks  the  language  was  not  entirely  forgot- 
ten among  the  people.  See  the  views  of  Pfeiffer  and  Loscher,  1.  c.  Simonis, 
Int.  in  Ling.  Heb.  p.  33.     Carpzov,  Crit.  p.  213.     See  Eichhorn,   Bibliothek, 

vol.  viii.  p.  360,  sqq.     Paulus,  Verosimilia  de  Judaeis Jesu  tempore 

GroBca locutis.    De  Rossi,  Ling,  di  Christo  ;   Parm.  1772,  4to. 


D.]  APPENDIX.  439 

§11. 
RICHES    AND    EXTENT    OF    THE    ANCIENT    LANGUAGE." 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  entire  vocabulary  of  the  ancient  language 
cannot  be  contained  in  our  relics  of  the  old  Hebrew  literature. 
However,  we  are  not  to  estimate  the  lost  portion  too  highly,  by 
reckoning  all  possible  combinations  from  triliteral  radicals ;  for,  if 
this  rule  is  followed,  we  shall  have  now  remaining  scarcely  the  sixth 
part  of  the  primitive  words. ''  The  relics  of  the  language,  however, 
enable  us  to  judge  that  the  people  who  used  it  moved  in  a  pretty 
limited  circle  of  ideas;  but  of  these  the  religious  ideas  were  the 
most  completely  formed.  The  language  itself  discloses  the  same 
fact,  for  religious  ideas  are  pointed  out  and  distinguished  with  the 
greatest  copiousness  and  accuracy.  It  had  a  great  copiousness  in 
words  of  a  similar  sense,  on  account  of  the  peculiar  structure  of  its 
poetry,  where  the  parallelism  of  the  members  often  demanded  differ- 
ent expressions  of  the  same  thought."  In  comparison,  it  may  be  said 
that  the  Hebrew  language,  in  general,  and  in  respect  to  its  copious- 
ness, stands  midway  between  the  Arabic,  which  is  more,  and  the 
Syriac,  which  is  less,  copious.  However,  some  sources  may  be  found 
that  furnish  more  or  less  important  contributions  to  the  language 
contained  in  the  Bible,  and  from  which  both  grammars  and  lexicons 
may  be  enriched  or  derive  explanations.     They  are  the  following  :  — 

I.  The  proper  names,  which,  in  Hebrew,  as  in  all  languages,  were  at 


"  See  a  treatise  by  Corn.  Van  Waenan,  Ue  Lingua  Heb.  pomoeriis  ampliandis, 
in  Schdtens's  Sylloge  of  Dissertations,  p.  719,  sqq.  See  Schultens,  De  Defect. 
Ling.  Heb.  §  12. 

'  Albert  Schultens  (De  Defect.  Ling.  Heb.  §  12)  thinks  there  were  about  twelve 
tliousand  triliteral  roots  possible.  Exclusive  of  the  quadriliterals,  only  about  two 
thousand  of  these  occur.  If  every  root  had  but  thirty  derivatives,  then  thirty 
thousand  are  lost !  What  a  conclusion  from  the  possible  to  the  actual !  See 
Simonis,  Introd.  in  Ling.  Heb.  p.  16.  Michaelis,  Supplem.  p.  109.  De  Sacy, 
Grainm.  Arab.  vol.  i.  p.  30.  Leusden  enumerates  the  words  that  occur  in  the 
Hebrew  (and  Chaldee)  Bible  at  five  thousand  six  hundred  and  forty-two.  In 
Greek,  there  are  about  eighty  thousand. 

"^  It  has  been  said  that  it  contains  sixteen  verba frangcndi,  ten  verba  quarendi, 
and  fourteen  expressing  confidence  in  God.  In  words  relating  to  things  that 
belong  to  the  life  of  Oriental  herdsmen,  the  language  is  incomparably  richer  than 
the  most  highly-cultivated  European  language,  e.  g.  in  names  for  cattle  and 
wild  beasts  at  different  ages.     See  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  201. 


460  APPEiXDIX.  [d. 

first  appellatives.  They  may  contain  much  from  the  most  ancient 
language,  which  will  explain  the  formation  of  the  present  dialect. 
From  this  source  we  obtain  a  whole  series  of  grammatical  forms, 
new  verbs  and  nouns, —  with  which  we  are  acquainted  in  the  Arabic 
and  Syriac  languages,  but  which  it  is  certain  were  Hebrew  likewise, 
—  and  primitive  forms,  from  which  only  the  derivatives  remain."  .  .  . 
1.  In  other  dialects,  the  following  proper  names  are  very  well- 
known  appellatives.  —  Geshur,  *^iiira  ,  bridge.  Dothan,  prri  ,  two 
springs.  Nun,  y]'} ,  fish.  nSD  ,  lmt\  Sisera,  siio'io  ,  battle-array. 
Cain,  "^ip,  a  smith.  Appellatives  from  the  names  of  beasts  are  par- 
ticularly clear.  —  Aran,  '^'is!; ,  wild  goat.  Jemimah,  n>3'i?p';i ,  dove. 
Hoglah,  rib'^Ti,  partridge.  Othni,  "^riiy,  lion.  Shaalabbin,  t:'^:;:2>'r', 
citi/  of  foxes,  (fox-borough.)  We  can  trace  more  than  thirty  proper 
names  in  h  to  similar  radical  words.  This  has  been  done,  though 
not  completely,  in  Schiedii  Lex.  Heb.  ed.  Gronewoud.  In  many 
instances,  the  etymology  is,  indeed,  obscure,  but  a  good  deal  of  the 
obscurity  may  be  cleared  up  by  a  careful  examination.  Thus 
tJbffiTTi  is  certainly  not  compounded  ofcib'B  'Cl^^"^ ,  possession  of  peace ; 
but  it  means  rather  people  of  peace,  from  '^-\-^ ,  equivalent  to  the 
Arabic  i"ii ,  synonymous  with  btiii ,  ti'^ri?; ,  so  that  perhaps  it  means 
tent,  or  dwelling  of  peace,  for  V^'i ,  in  Hebrew,  had  this  modified 
sense.  Compare  bliK ,«  ^cni,  in  Arabic  bn;*,  a  people  ;  also,  rr^s  , 
a  house,  or  a  people.  So  ^5<'^Ti ,  or  ^Kiii ,  the  name  of  a  desert,  means 
dwelling  of  God.''  The  writers  themselves  explain  many  difficult 
words,  as,  for  example,  cniiii,  (Gen.  xvii.  5,)  lb3>,  (xxv.  25.)  But 
in  other  cases,  the  etymology  which  they  give  is  not  correct.'  Thus, 
according  to  1  Sam.  i.  20,  ^>t^?2d  is  derived  from  jJ^pd  and  "::« , 
called  of  God ;  but  a  better  meaning  is,  7iame  of  God,  from  ^?a  w  ,  the 
construct  state  of  t!".:i ,  as  '"s^  and  "^iis  are  the  construct  state  of  2!>5  • 
So  tD^'ns^a^Si*  means  mourning  of  Egypt,  according  to  Gen.  iv.  11  ; 
but  it  rather  means  place  or  threshing-floor  of  Egypt.  In  some 
instances,  we  have  not  the  means  of  understanding  fully  an  allusion 

"  See  the  literature  on  the  explanation  of  the  proper  names  in  Wolff,  Bib. 
Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  565.  Hist.  Lex.  p.  "219,  sqq.  Yet  much  is  still  to  be  done. 
The  most  useful  works  are  Simonis,  Ononiast.icon,  V.  T.,(1741,  4to.,)  and  Hillcri 
Ononiast.,  (170G,  4to.) 

*  Sec  Lexicon,  sub  voce.  <=  See  above,  §  8,  4, 


D.]  APPENDIX.  461 

to  the  etymology  of  a  name  ;  an  example  occurs  in  Jer.  xx.  3,  '^^nrs , 
which  seems  to  mean  welfare."' 

2,  The  grammatical  forms,  which  seldom  or  never  occur  in  the 
common  language,  are  as  follows :  the  emphatic  state  of  the  Ara- 
maean in  parr's,  a  city,  jt^J",  a  yoke;  the  dual  form  in  tr,  X,->  3"<1 
I",  (see  §  21,  3 ;)  the  Arabic  form  of  the  Segolate  noun,  as  in  yvA  ; 
the  Chaldee  form  of  the  future,  as  y^5^ ,  he  loould  advise ;  tVJ"^ , 
he  assejuhles  together  ;  the  participle,  as  b'lnix ,  camel-keeper.  Com- 
pare 'Tl'i^ain,  maintaining,  (Ps.  xvi.  5;)  the  frequent  jof/  compaginis, 
as  in  ni>2  'inn ,  &c. 

The  old  singular  forms,  of  which  only  the  plural  is  now  found,  are 
of  special  importance.  'n"i:=-in,  a  mountain,  (compare  Gen.  xlix. 
26;)  -\':> ,  a  city,  of  which  the  plural  occurs,  ti^yj .  There  are 
several  words  of  the  form  ^ns,  of  which  only  the  plurals  remain,  as 
C^ns.  SoiM73'i,  God's  day,  which  is  a  relic  of  ii>2";  =  n?2%  and 
?3"i  is  the  singular  of  Qi72^  .  So  H^'i^.n??  ,  or  bs'OTn)?  ,  where  in?a  ==  n?3 
or  n?9,  (in  ^-Ethiopic,  met,)  signifies  man,  and  is  the  singular  of 
Ci'^n?2.  Of  the  same  form  are  bM2''l  and  b5?^?2'i ,  where  VJ^  =  H^'l ,  or 
3>;i ,  and  ii?2d  =  M . 

II.  Another  source,  not  always  sufficiently  regarded  or  made  use 
of  for  single  ancient  forms  of  speech,  is  found  in  the  variants  of  the 
Kethib,  where  the  authors  of  the  Keri  have  sometimes  inserted  some 
old  and  genuine  words  along  with  what  seemed  to  them  to  be  incor- 
rect, and  with  some  real  errors.  According  to  the  old  critical  canon, 
that  where  both  are  supported  by  equal  authority,  the  more  difficult 
reading  has  the  preference,  the  balance  turns  in  favor  of  the  Kethib ; 
and  the  analogy  of  the  cognate  dialects  often  comes  to  settle  the 
well-known  controversy  of  the  Masorites,  according  to  the  principles 
of  these  languages.* 

"»  See  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Com.  in  loc. 

*  For  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  Kethib  and  Keri,  see  Simonis,  Analysis 
Lect.  Masoret.  ;  Hal.  17.52,  8vo.  They  are  arranged  in  classes  by  Hiller,  De 
arcan.  Kethib  et  Keri;  Tub.  1692,  8vo.  On  the  superiority  of  the  Kethib,  and 
the  explanation  thereof,  see  J.Ji.  Danzius,  Sinceritas  Scripturag  V.  T.  preevalente 
Keri  vacillans ;  Jen.  1713,  4to.,  reprinted  in  J.  Iken,  Thes.  Phil,  novus.  F. 
Tsepregi,  Diss,  de  Authentia  select.  Chethibim,  partes  ii.,  (Francq.  1725;) 
reprinted  in  Sylloge  Dissertat.  above  cited,  vol.  i.  No.  2,  3.  J.  F.  Froriep,  Diss, 
de  Utilitate  Ling.  Arab,  in  defendendis  nonnullis  locis  to€  Chethib;  Leips. 
1767,  4to. 


462  APPENDIX.  [d. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  rare  icords  and  forms  of  the  Kethib, 
which  have  been  displaced  by  the  Keri,  and  which  are  found  only 
in  the  passages  referred  to:  inn,  probably  Jl^,  to  be  greedy 
or  avaricious;  Prov.  xx.  21."  ri'ii)!  =  CK,  jirc ;  Jer.  vi.  29. 
|:5in:=p'in,  bosom;  Ps.  Ixxiv.  11.  Ci^lp  =:  ti'lt?,  not  yet ;  Ruth  iii, 
14.  fiiri,  to  be  placed,  neuter  of  bVJ,  (asT^'^,  from  "ils;)  Gen. 
xxiv.  33,  Judg.  xii.  3 :  it  occurs  without  the  Keri,  only  in  Gen,  1.  26. 
t3'^n"iB ,  for  ti'ipp,  villages;  Esth.  ix.  19.  And,  after  the  same 
analogy,  D'^?2i'ix ,  Syrians ;  2  Kings  xvi.  6.  tiili^^ ,  rooods ;  Ezek. 
xxxiv.  25,  and  ^isj^sn^^ns,  Jer.  xlix.  28,  Ezra  ii.  1,  for  tJ'^Tfi'nN,  ti'^'iS'';' , 
and  'i^Sii^^^iS .  "liy^  for  ^'■^TI ,  little ;  Jer.  xiv.  3,  xlviii.  4.  •^id'iN'i  = 
')iffiii'i;  Job  XV.  7,  Josh.  xxi.  10.  (It  is  the  prevalent  form  in  the 
Samaritan  text.)  tiT^s^o  ,  for  ni"!^;  2  Kings  xi.  4,  9,  10,  15.  (Com- 
pare the  Arabic  «jLo.) 

The  following  are  peculiar  in  respect  to  grammar :  The  imper- 
ative, like  "^piTi  =r  iQ-i'i ;  Ps,  xxxviii.  21.  Participles,  like  Q^IViiJ''; 
1  Sam.  XXV.  18,  2  Kings  xxiii.  4.  Double  plurals,  or  duals,  like 
f^mnnr^s;  2  Ch.  xxxiv.  5.  \jiS'i;;;  1  Kings  vi.  16.  Duals  in  q-; 
Ezek.  XXV.  9,  xlvi.  19. 

The  variants  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  furnish  far  more 
numerous  additions  to  the  language  ;  but,  on  account  of  the  correc- 
tional character  of  this  text,  we  cannot,  on  this  authority,  assume 
that  every  thing  is  old  and  genuine  Hebrew  which  does  not  bear  the 
mark  of  an  Aramaeo-Samaritan  form ;  for  it  may  be  a  modern  altera- 
tion. The  same  remark  is  to  be  made  respecting  the  variants  of  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts,  for  they  disclose  an  attempt  to  remove  what 
was  difficult  or  unusual  from  the  text,  more  frequently  than  they 
show  that  any  thing  strange,  and  elsewhere  unknown,  was  to  be 
found  in  it.  However,  the  variant  ti'^tii'll'ii  ^"^'z ,  Job  xxiv.  11,  (for 
tni-i^a  Vr!>  ^fter  the  analogy  of  iDini^sn,)  deserves  some  attention. 
In  a  verse  interpolated  after  Ps.  xiv.  3,  we  find  the  una^  Xsydfierov 
^^f2 ,  a  star,  in  the  sense  of  fate. 

III.  On  the  Jewish  coins  of  the  Maccabaic  age,  some  glosses  occur, 
which,  with  few  exceptions,  are  not  found  in  the  more  ancient  He- 


»  See  j9.  Schultens,  in  loc. 


p.]  APPENDIX.  463 

brew;  for  example,  ■^li^  m"ini!,  or  fi^n^^for  the  liberation  of  Zion, 
read  n^"inV" 

IV.  Some  few  words  of  the  most  modern  Hebrew  are  found  in  the 
Greek  Apocrypha ;  but  as  they  are  written  in  Greek  letters,  it  is,  iu 
general,  very  difficult  to  interpret  them.* 

V.  Many  old  Hebrew  words  are  doubtless  preserved  in  the  language 
of  the  Talmud,  particularly  of  the  Mishna,  which,  in  antiquity  and 
language,  comes  the  nearest  to  the  most  modern  books  of  the  canon. 
But  who  will  undertake  to  separate  the  old  from  the  new  1  However, 
if  we  may  infer  any  thing  from  the  analogy  of  other  dead  languages, 
we  must  maintain  that  many  derivatives  from  old  primitives,  and  their 
new  significations,  may  be  of  late  origin.  It  is  natural  that  this 
should  be  the  case  with  all  words  which  relate  to  more  modern  ideas. 
But  it  is  not  the  business  of  men  who  use  a  dead  language  to  form 
new  primitives ;  and  in  this  case,  for  the  most  part,  there  must  be 
something  ancient  at  the  bottom,  especially  if  the  usage  of  the  word 
differs  from  the  Syriac.  We  may  assume,  with  some  confidence,  a 
certain  antiquity  for  the  numerous  names  of  animals,  plants,  &lc., 
which  occur  in  the  Mishna,  and  which  were  so  soon  forgotten,  that 
even  in  the  Gemara  they  required  an  explanation."     For  the  most 

"  Bayer,  De  Nummis  Heb.  p.  21.  Ekhel,  Doctrina  Num.  Vet.  vol.  iii.  p.  469. 
In  the  Mishna  and  Targums  we  find  ^T^n  and  n^'T^n  ;  fl^ltl  is  more  frequent, 
and  is  allied  to  "iIPIj  liber,  ingenuus.     The  derivation  from  tlin  is  false. 

*  E.  g.  the  title  of  1  Mace,  SaQ^ri»-2a(i^avit}.,  i.  e.  ii^  "^D^  '^yr>  tOyii  > 
History  of  the  Princes  of  the  Sons  of  God,  (Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  xii.  112;  see  in 
Bertholdt,  1.  c.  p.  1047;)  Maxxa^aiog,  most  probably  "^^fS^O  ,  Hammerer  ;  comp. 
Charles  Martel,  {Bertholdt,  1.  c.  1045;)  A^iSaiov  =  CiTicn,  i.  e.  the  -pious 
adherents  of  Jehovah,  (Ps.  Ixxix.  2;)  Avqltv,  or  AavccQuv,  (1  Mace.  ii.  5,)  a 
surname  of  Eleazar,  i.  e.  foramen,  podex  hrutorum,  (Michaelis,  Supplem.  p.  696; 
see  1  Mace.  vi.  43 — 46;)  Ajicpovg,  a  name  of  Jonathan,  11515)1,  libertus. 
Others  are  derived  from  the  Syro-Chaldee  vernacular;  e.  g.  ifaoiaaioi;  = 
\,j^*'f3  ,  separatus  ;    Eaaaiog,  pius. 

'  A  great  number  of  them  may  be  found  in  Tract  Kilaim,  in  Surenhusius's 

Mishna,  vol.  i.  p.  109.     Many  of  them,  if  we  do  not  include  the  foreign  names, 

seem  to  be  vernacular  in  Palestine,  and  old ;  e.  g.  C^DSS* ,  in  Arabic,  (j*/L^f » 

^l_^| ,  and   also  (jfiLi^Jl,  pears,  though  in  other  dialects  of  the  Arabic, 

plums;    ^Tin»  J^\" C  ,    mustard;   TiV'bl  >  a  gourd;    niT>   salad;  m3t3|?5 
pulse,  &c. 


464  APPENDIX.  [d. 

part,  they  agree  with  the  Arabic.  The  negative  argument,  which  may 
be  brought  from  the  fact  of  their  non-occurrence  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, has  little  value;  for  those  books,  from  their  peculiar  character, 
did  not  furnish  an  occasion  for  the  use  of  the  word. 

VI.  Here  and  there,  in  the  oldest  versions,  particularly  in  that  of 
the  Seventy,  significations  are  given  to  words  which  they  really  had 
in  the  old  Hebrew,  and  which  are  confirmed  by  the  analogy  o'i  the 
cognate  dialects,  but  of  which  no  examples  now  occur. 

VII.  On  account  of  the  very  close  afiinity  between  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Phoenician,  something  may  be  found  in  the  relics  of  the  latter 
dialect  which  was  genuine  Hebrew,  but  does  not  occur  in  the  docu- 
ments that  are  preser\ed  to  us.'' 

^  12. 

DIALECTS    IN    THE     HEBREW    LANGUAGE. 

1.  The  analogy  of  almost  all  other  languages  would  render  it 
probable  that,  while  the  Hebrew  was  a  living  language,  some  diver- 
sity of  dialects  had  found  place,  even  if  there  were  now  no  distinct 
traces  of  such  a  diversity.  But  in  the  case  of  a  meagre  language, 
which  itself  was  at  first  only  a  dialect  of  a  greater  family  of  lan- 
guages, too  much  is  not  to  be  built  on  this  supposition.  The  com- 
parison of  the  Greek  dialects  is  not  to  the  point,  for  all  actual  traces 
of  dialects  among  the  Hebrews  relate  merely  to  pronunciation.  In 
the  written  language,  nothing  can  be  found  which  can  be  called  a 
provincialism,  with  any  considerable  degree  of  probability.  Still  less 
can  the  peculiarities  of  the  second  period  be  regarded  as  provincial 
idioms.* 

°  See  Excurs.  of  Gesenius,  at  end  of  his  Gesch.  Heb.  Sprache,  [and  also  his 
Palaographische  Studien  Qber  Phonisches  and  Punisches  Schrift.,  and  Script. 
Ling.  Phoenic.  Monumenta,  3  pts.  4to. ;  Halle,  1837.] 

''  Jo.  Kiessling,  De  Dialectis  Heb.  diss.  11.  Eichhom,  1.  c.  §  11.  A'achtigall, 
in  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  ix.  p.  235.  Dereser  finds  traces  of  a  Moabitish  dialect  in  the 
book  of  Ruth.  But  Kiessling  (1.  c.)  goes  farther  than  any  other,  and  finds  a  dia- 
lectic variation  in  the  anomalous  inflections  that  often  occur ;  e.  g.  in  the 
feminine  termination  ri-,  he  finds  the  Philistine  or  Idumaan  dialect.  Comp. 
r*n»,  T'Zli,  tlb"»-  He  thinks  "^3.  (for  '\z)  belongs  to  the  dialect  of  Judtea. 
See  Simonis,  Onomast.  V.  T.  p.  40.  XachtigaU  (1-  c)  speaks  of  a  dialect  east- 
Jordanic.  and  a  west-Jordanic  dialect  distinguished  by  the  use  of  C  =  "~i< 


D.]  APPENDIX.  465 

2.  The  following  are  the  passages :  Judg.  xii.  6,  accordiuor  to 
which  the  Ephraimites  were  distinguished  by  an  habitual  pronuncia- 
tion of  r  like  b,  {sh  like  s ;)  Neh.  xiii.  23,  24,  where  the  zealous 
patriot  was  angry  because  the  dialect  of  Ashdod  had  stolen  into  Je- 
rusalem instead  of  the  genuine  Jewish  dialect.  Some  also  mention 
Judges  xviii.  3,  where  it  is  said  the  Danites  knew  the  voice  (b",":)  of 
a  young  Levite.  But  the  terms  of  the  expression,  and  the  context, 
render  it  probable  that  it  is  not  a  dialect,  {'/Aha,)  which  is  here 
spoken  of,  but  the  individual  voice  of  a  young  man  who  was  known 
to  the  parties  concerned." 

Since  the  Philistine  names  of  persons,  places,  and  gods,  are  regu- 
lar Hebrew  in  their  form,  as  r<^y ,  l-ntrJi,  'Tj:'2"'25<  ,  the  dialectic 
difference  may  consist  chiefly  in  the  pronunciation,  '^•^o ,  prince, 
seems  to  be  a  peculiar  word.  Mdgvag,  the  name  of  an  idol  of  Gaza,  is 
Syriac,    c:",'^  ,  Dominus  hominum.     But  this  may  be  of  recent  date. 

3.  It  has  already  been  shown  that,  throughout  the  second  period,  a 
popular  language  prevailed,  which  differed  from  the  written  language, 
but  was  yet  similar  to  it.  However,  at  an  earlier  date,  the  language 
of  common  life  may  have  differed  from  it  in  some  forms ;  and  some 
words  are  found,  which  are  not  so  easily  explained  by  referring  them 
to  the  influence  of  the  Syriac,  as  by  the  supposition  that  they  were 
incorrect  expressions  used  in  common  life,  which  have  stolen  into  the 
written  language.  Here,  probably,  belong  the  numerous  inaccurate 
and  careless  expressions  in  Ezekiel ;  the  occasional  confusion  of 
gender,  especially  in  the  pronouns,  (thus  rs*  is  used  in  a  masculine, 
and  srii*  in  Sl  feminine  sense;*)  the  confusion  and  blending  of  kin- 
dred forms,  (as  B^rrindin,  for  Qitn^ifflin,  Zach.  x.  6;)  the  conjuga- 
tion hithp/ul;  the  frequent  use  of  the  redundant  dativ.  commodi, 
ii ,  si  ,'  and  perhaps  the  abbreviated  forms,  like  '^'ip  .'^    Much,  which 

In  this  way,  he  claims  Eccles.,  Cant.,  and  a  part  of  Jonah,  for  the  first  period. 
But  he  adduces  no  adequate  reasons. 

°  See  Drusius,  in  loc. 

*  The  common  Arabs  use  an  analogous  form.    See  Lexicon,  sub  voce  ntlK . 

•^  See  Steph.  Byzant.  sub  voce  rata.  Bochart,  Geog.  sac.  lib.  i.  ch.  xv.  p.  60. 
The  fact  that  Peter  was  detected  by  his  language,  Matt.  xxvi.  73.  Compare 
the  paraphrases  in  Terence,  and  ihe  formula  in  Horace,  Quid  mihi  Celsus  agisf 

<*  Compare,  in  Arabic,  ^^yXjJO ,  valg.  ^^^yJ>JJO  •  See  Weckkerlins,  Heb. 
Lesebuch,  p.  60. 

VOL.    L  69 


466  APPENDIX.  [d. 

belongs  here,  seems  to  be  preserved  in  the  rabbinical  language,  as 

~T2,  lio,  the  conjugation  nitkpael,  &c. 


«§,  13. 

RELATION    OF    THE    HEBREW    LANGUAGE    TO    THE    COGNATE 
DIALECTS. 

In  order  to  make  the  necessary  use  of  the  cognate  dialects,  it  is 
very  important,  for  every  one  who  wishes  to  go  beyond  the  rudi- 
ments, to  form  a  just  notion  of  the  kind  of  relation  between  them. 

This  subject  belongs  rather  to  hermeneutics,  upon  which  we  shall 
not  enter  ;  but  a  few  remarks  will  not  be  out  of  place  here. 

1.  In  all  respects,  geographical  as  well  as  others,  the  Hebrew 
language  stands  midway  between  the  copious  Arabic  and  the  Ara- 
msean  language,  which  is  incomparably  poorer.  This  is  shown  in 
the  orthography,  the  vocalization,  and  in  the  greater  or  less  richness 
in  grammatical  forms,  and  stock  of  words.  In  the  alphabet,  the 
Arabic  has  six  letters  more,  and  expresses  certain  degrees  of  sound 
in  the  letters  n ,  (r ,)  n ,  t3 ,  !? ,  2 ,  and  n ,  by  a  written  character.  The 
Syrians  have  one  letter  (is)  less  than  the  Hebrews;  they  write  D 
instead  of  it.     The  Arabic  is  richer  in  vowels  than  the  Hebrew, 

and  the  Syriac  is  poorer.  Compare  Jjii* ,  pB^) ,  and  'Cj^ .  In 
Arabic,  the  abundance  of  grammatical  forms  is  much  greater.  It 
has  ten  regular  conjugations,  with  their  passives,  besides  the  un- 
usual conjugations,  a  dual  form  of  verbs,  and  a  distinct  separation  of 
verbs,  15 ,  ij ,  and  ib ,  &.c.  The  Syriac  has  no  conjugation  niphal, 
no  alterations  of  the  future  tense ;  and,  in  the  irregular  verbs,  the 
forms  sti)  and  n^i ,  13>  and  i3> ,  and  both  classes  of  15 ,  run  together, 
while,  in  Hebrew,  they  are  separate.  Still  further,  the  Hebrew  has 
united  the  peculiar  formations  of  the  two  other  classes.  The 
Arabic  forms  all  the  passives  by  the  obscurer  vowels ;  the  Syriac 
by  prefixing  the  syllable  rs^ :  the  Hebrew  forms  pi/al  and  hophal 
in  the  first  way,  and  the  reflective  hithpael  in  the  last. 

2.  The  Hebrew  bears  marks  of  being  older  than  the  Arabic  and 
Syriac  in  their  present  form.  Therefore,  in  Hebrew  the  etymology 
is  often  very  obvious  when  it  is  lost  in  the  other  dialects.  We  can 
see  several  forms  and  senses  of  words  originating  in  the  Hebrew 
which  are  fixed  in  the  present  Syriac  and  Arabic 


D.]  APPENDIX.  467 

3,  On  account  of  its  riches  and  the  copiousness  of  its  sources 
for  the  knowledge  of  the  language,  the  Arabic  will  yield  the  inquirer 
proportionally  the  richest  booty.  However,  it  is  not  to  be  concealed 
that  the  Aramaean  often  lies  nearer  to  the  Hebrew,  since  it  is  evi- 
dent, both  from  history  and  geography,  that  the  Hebrews  had  a 
nearer  contact  with  nations  who  spoke  the  Aramcean  than  with  such 
as  spoke  the  Arabic." 

<^  14. 

GLOSSES    TAKEN    FROM    FOREIGN    LANGUAGES    THAT    ARE    NOT 
SHEMITISH. 

Since  the  Israelites,  while  their  language  remained  a  living  speech, 
stood  in  close  connection  with  several  foreign  nations,  and,  part  of 
the  time,  lived  in  the  same  region  with  them,  it  is  almost  impossible 
that  single  words  should  not  be  introduced  to  the  Hebrew  from 
languages  which  had  no  other  affinity  with  it ;  and  sometimes,  after 
a  slight  alteration,  they  became  naturalized  in  it. 

1.  During  their  residence  in  iEgypt,  they  may  have  received  a 
small  number  of  ^Egyptian  words,  particularly  names  of  things  which 
were  common  in  yEgypt.  These  may  be  explained  by  the  present 
Coptic  language,  a  descendant  of  the  old  ^Egyptian ;  but  this  is  now 
extinct,  and  is  only  used  as  an  ecclesiastical  language.''  It  has  no 
affinity  with  the  Shemitish  languages." 

"  It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  modification  the  Aramaean  words  underwent 
when  they  were  admitted  into  the  Hebrew.  All  the  words  which  the  Syrians 
apply  to  the  icorship  of  God  are  applied  to  idolatrrj  by  the  Hebrews,  because  the 
worship  of  the  Syrians  appeared  to  them  as  apostasy,  or  false  religion;  e.  g. 
I3'i'n?23,  in  Syriac,  ^j'tesis,  in  Hebrew,  idol-jjriests;  n3D  ,  in  Syr.  to  fall  down, 
in  Heb.  to  fall  down  before  idols  ;  tlDp  ,  Syr.  >c^,  to  prophesy,  Heb.  to  foretell 
hij  divination,  applied  to  false  prophets ;  £'-'3  ,  Syr.  to  j)ray,  Heb.  to  practise 
magic;  llilp  and  ITiiniP ,  Syr.  consecrated  man  or  woman,  Heb.  a  prostitute. 
in  the  Peshito,  tli^^K  ,  which  properly  means  Syriac,  is  heathen. 

*  See  Quatremcre,  Recherches  sur  la  Langue,  &c.  de  I'Egypte;  180S,  4to. 
Melung,  Mithridates,  vol.  iii.  Ign.  Rossi,  Etymologiee  iEgyptiacffi  ;  Rom. 
1808,  4to. 

"  See  Jerome,  Com.  in  Isa.  xix.  18,  lib.  viii.  ch.  19,  and  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib. 
vol.  V.  p.  50,  sqq.     Origen,  Cont.  Celsum,  iii.  p.  115,  al.  451. 

Examples.  —  ^nj^ ,  J^gypt.  a-/i,  J^ile  grass,  ^it^ ,  .^gypt.  tuQo,  isqo,  a 
flood,  the  A'ile.  Some  proper  names,  e.  g.  riS^S ,  (povQo,  king.  Perhaps  the 
names  of  some  of  the  months,  nitp,  Copt.  rv^i.     The  names  of  the  precious 


468  APPENDIX.  •'  [d. 

2.  Persian  words  were  admitted  into  the  Hebrew  in  a  far  later 
period,  —  that  of  the  Persian  dominion.  For  the  most  part,  they  are 
such  as  were  borrowed  from  things  which  were  peculiar  to  Persia, 
such  as  the  titles  of  magistrates,  honorary  titles,  &.c.  The  dialect 
which,  at  that  time,  prevailed  in  Persia  proper,  is  called  Parsi,  and 
from  this  the  Persian  words  contained  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  con- 
temporary Greek  and  Roman  writers  were  borrowed.  However, 
they  frequently  agree  with  the  older  dialects,  Zend  and  Pehlvi,  and, 
in  most  cases,  the  modern  Persian,  which  is  not  altogether  different, 
must  supply  the  want  of  older  sources." 

stones  have  been  sometimes  taken  for  Egyptian,  but  the  fact  cannot  be  proved. 
Accidental  agreement  has  sometimes  been  mistaken  for  affinity ;  as,  i5:5< , 
Copt,  uvox,  I;    to*!,  Copt.  i(u«,  the  sea;    b'l&^Pl  and    f^C^iu ,  Serapis,  &c. 

Many  such  words,  with  a  httle  alteration,  are  capable  of  a  Hebrew  ety- 
mology; so  their  true  origin  has  been  overlooked;  e.g.  Qn,  Copt.  XHMI, 
^gypt,  which  the  Jews,  perhaps,  regarded  as  a  southern  region.  r,i?2nS, 
the  Nile-horse,  (probably  p  ehe-mouty  the  water-ox;)  Ij^^S ,  i.e.  ape-rich^ 
lower  the  head 

Among  modern  interpreters  of  Scripture,  Bochart  and  Pfeiffer,  (Dubia  vexata,) 
but  still  more  P.  E.  Jablonski,  have  distinguished  themselves  by  applying  tlie 
Coptic  to  explain  such  expressions.  The  explanations  of  J.  R.  Forster  (Man- 
tissEB  iEgypt.  ad  Lib.  de  Bysso  Antiquorum,  Epist.  ad  J.  D.  Michaelem)  are 

less  acceptable.     See,  also,  JVahl,  Magazin  fiir morg.  und  Bib.  Lit.  Th. 

i. — iii.  The  best  collection  and  explanation  of  all  the  real  and  alleged  .Slgyp- 
tian  glosses  is  made  by  Jablonski,  Opusc.  ed.  Te  Water,  vol.  i.  Sc/joZz  borrowed 
his  explanations  {Eichhorns  Repert.  vol.  xiii.  p.  1 — 31)  from  these  papers. 

"  On  the  language  of  ancient  Persia,  see  Jinquetil  du  Perron,  [Acad,  des  In- 
script.  vol.  xxxi.  xxxvii.  xxxviii.]  in  Kleuker's  Zend-Avesta,  vol.  ii.  p.  29,  sqq., 
especially  the  Lexicon  of  Zend  and  Pehlvi,  vol.  iii.  p.  137,  sqq.     See  Kleuker's 

Anhang  zur  Zend-Avesta,   vol.  i.  p.  2 Bochart,   (Phaleg.  i.   15,)  Ji. 

Pfeiffer,  (1.  c.  and  Opp.  Philol.;  Ultraj.  1674,  4to.,)  De  Dieu,  (Crit.  sac.,)  Hot- 
tinger,  (Smegma  Orient,  p.  75 — 80,)  Reland,  (De  vet.  Ling.  Pers.  Diss,  miscell. 
vol.  ii.  p.  97,)  Jahn,  (Einleit.  and  Archaol.,)  and  Lorsbach,  (Arehiv.  far  raorg. 
Lit.   vol.   i.  ii.,)    have   done  much    to  explain  these  words,   but   much   is  still 

obscure See  the   appellatives  in  Simonis,  Arcanum  Form.  p.  G39,  the 

proper  names  in  his  Onomast.  V.  T.  p.  567 

Examples. —  tl^'.^^j  *  letter;  compare  5jUot  ,  something  written.  t\1, 
S\3  >  Law;  Pehlvi,  Dadha;  Zend,  Daetie.  b'^^S'lS  ,  jT*>i^>  worm-red,  i.  e. 
karmesin,  [crimson.]  tD^Jpri'lQ  ,  Parsi,  Pardomim,  nobles;  compare  Pardem,  in 
Ve\iW\,  the  first.    -t)3tlQ,  Pers.  Pedant,  Peigham,  icord,  saying,  edict.     (inS  , 


D.]  APPENDIX.  469 

3.  Still  more  difficult  is  the  inquiry  to  what  language  the  Assyrio- 
Babylonian  names  of  gods,  persons,  and  especially  of  kings,  (Nebo 
and  Nebuchadnezzar,)  belong.  They  occur  in  the  writings  before 
the  exile,  and  in  the  works  of  profane  authors."  It  is  almost  univer- 
sally acknowledged  that  these  are  the  relics  of  the  proper  Assyrian 
language ;  and  then  the  only  question  is  this  —  To  what  Asiatic  fami- 
ly of  languages  does  that  belong? 

Many  old  writers  on  language,  whom  Adelung,  Heeren,  and 
,|  Eichhorn,  have  followed,  coiisider  it  a  Shemitish  dialect,  which 
resembled  the  east-Aramaean  of  the  Babylonians.  This  supposition 
is  supported  by  Isa.  xxxvi.  11,  where  the  Assyrian  Rabshakeh  is 
commanded  to  speak  Aramaean ;  by  the  name  Assyrian  letters  for 
Chaldee  square  letters,  and  finally  by  the  fact  that  the  Syrians  and 
Assyrians  are  often  confounded  together  in  the  classics.  Following 
this  theory,  these  names  have  been  explained  from  the  Shemitish  dia- 
lects.'' But  the  foreign  aspect  of  these  names,  and  the  ill-success 
which  has  attended  these  attempts  to  explain  them,  furnish  a  reason 
for  rejecting  the  hypothesis,  especially  as  these  objections  may  be 
enforced  by  other  arguments.  The  fact  that  Rabshakeh  was  com- 
manded to  speak  in  Aramaean  does  not  prove  it  was  his  mother 
tongue,  for  this  dialect  was  used  at  the  Persian  court,  as  a  means  of 
communicating  with  the  provinces  on  this  side  the  Euphrates.  (Ezra 
iv.  7.)  The  name  Assyrian  loriting  proves  only  the  probable  iden- 
tity of  the  writing  character.  The  uncritical  confusion  of  names 
that  are  similar  in  Greek  and  Roman,  but  not  in  the  Oriental  lan- 
guages, does  not  deserve  consideration  in  this  inquiry. 

The  attempt  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  (at  the  suggestion  of  J.  R.  Forster) 

JttTii^tl ,  governor,  &c.,  which  last  word  has  not  yet  been  adequately  explained. 
Proper  Karnes.  —  SiPliaUJntl'ISl! ,  Artaxerxes,  i.e.  in  the  Zend,  Arta-Schetrao, 
Great  King.     ID'I'iS  ,  sun.     riTllTI^  ,  given  by  Mithra. 

The  Hebrew  has  some  words  in  common  with  the  Persian  ;  but,  notwithstand- 
ing that,  they  may  be  of  Shemitish  origin ;  e.  g.  T33   T3 ,  a  treasure,  Pers.  ^^-O, 

;  Pehlvi   Gaud.     C'||'15     is  doubtful.     In  the  old  Hebrew,  Persian  words  are 
I  "  ■  " 

doubtful;   e.g.  p'iJJa'l.     See  Lexicon. 

"  See  these  in  the  canon  of  Ptolevuj.  Comp.  Semler,  in  his  Erltluterungschrif- 
ten  zur  Allg.  Welthistorie,  vol.  iii.  p.  105,  sqq. 

<>  Loscher,  1.  c.  p.  41.  Simonis,  Onomast.  p.  567.  Adelung,  1.  c.  vol.i.  p.  330. 
Heeren,  Comment.  Soc.  Gott.  vol.  viii.  De  Ling.  Imperii  Persici,  §  15.  Eich- 
horn, Gesch.  neuern  Sprachenkunde,  vol.  i.  p.  417. 


470  APPENDIX.  *  [D. 

to  explain  them  from  the  Slavic  dialects  is  still  more  unfortunate 
and  objectionable.  He  proceeds  on  the  supposition,  which  is  wholly 
groundless,  that  the  Chaldees  of  the  Bible  are  the  northern  Chaldees 
of  Xenophon  and  Strabo.  Thus  he  completely  overlooks  the  con- 
nection between  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  dynasties.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  may  be  admitted,  with  the  highest  degree  of  probability, 
that  these  names,  and,  in  general,  the  Assyrian  language,  belong  to 
the  Medo-Persian  stock." 

4.  After  the  conquests  of  Alexand^  the  Great,  there  was  so  im- 
portant an  intercourse  between  Greece  and  Hither  Asia,  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  that  some  Greek  words  were  adopted  into  the  Asi- 
atic languages ;  without  doubt  this  has  been  done  in  the  Chaldee 
passages  of  Daniel,  and  therefore  it  seems  possible  that  the  same  may 
have  been  done  in  the  contemporary  Hebrew  writings.  Many 
interpreters  have  thought  they  discovered  Greek  words,  or  Grsecisms, 
or  turns  and  senses  borrowed  from  the  Greek.  But  they  will  not 
stand  before  an  accurate  examination.'' 

With  more  reason,  a  Greek  origin  has  been  ascribed  to  two 
words  which  occur  in  the  oldest  Hebrew  writings ;  e.  g.  T^&b , 
Syriac,  Js^n&^a^  ,  l<j.iintt;,  irja^s  ,  'oab'^s  ,  Chaldee,  5*nipb'^&  ,  TrdUwf , 
TTfiU?;!,  TittUax/c,  pellex.  Both,  therefore,  must  have  passed,  at  an 
early  date,  from  the  Greeks  to  the  Phoenicians.  But  rJ3bD  seems  to 
have  been  brought  from  the  East,  where  polygamy  was  common,  to 
the  Greeks  ;  and  the  etymological  arguments  are  not  sufficient  to  sup- 
port the  theory." 

«  See  JVfic/taeZis,  Spicileg.  Geog.ii.  102.  On  the  other  hand,  ^tZeZwno-,  I.e.  Gese- 
nius.  Lexicon,  sub  voce  C^^ipii .  See  Rosenmuller,  in  Habac.  i.  3.  See  Jab- 
Jo?ishi,  1.  c.  iii.  129.  Quatremere,  Recherches  sur  la  Langue  et  les  Antiquites 
(le  I'Egypte;  1808,  4to.  Rossi,  Etymologicce  jEgypt. ;  1808,  4to.  Lorshach, 
Archiv.  fUr  morgenlandische  Lit.  i.  2,  &c. 

'  Some  interpreters  explain  as  Greek  the  words  in  the  modern  Hebrew,  ex- 
plained above  as  Persian;  e.g.  fiiJptn'lS  ,  nQon^iot,  TTa^aro^ioi ;  D3tlB ,  ifdly^ui, 
word,  thing.  But  these  words  rarely  occur  in  Greek  in  the  same  sense  as  in 
Hebrew.  Dntsnt.?,  on  Esther,  i.  3.  Simojiis,  Lex.  Eichhorn,  I.e.  ^614,2.  On 
the  other  hand,  Jahn,  1.  c.  ii.  p.  627.  Gescnius,  1.  c.  sub  voce.  Least  of  all  to 
be  admitted  is  BcrthoUWs  opinion  that  the  word  pardomim,  in  Parsi,  is  derived 
from  the  Greek  rcoinnioi. 

See,  on  one  side,  Zirkd,  Untersuch  ub.  d.  Prediger,  (Ecclesiastes,)  1792,  p.  46— 
56,  and  Bertholdt  on  Daniel,  xi.  20.  On  the  other  hand,  see  Eichhorn,  Allg.  Bib. 
vol.  iv.  p.  904,  sqq.,  and  J.  E.  Ch.  Schmidt,  Salomis  Prediger,  p.  283,  sqq 

*  See  Michaclis,  Supplem.  ad  Le.\.  iii.  v.,  and  his  Einleit.  in  A.  T.  p.  1C6. 


D.]  APPENDIX.  471 

<^  15. 
AGREEMENT    BETWEEN    THE    HEBREW  AND    WESTERN    LANGUAGES. 

It  was  remarked  above  that  the  old  writers  on  languages  found 
their  principal  argument  in  favor  of  the  originality  of  the  Hebrew 
language  on  the  fact  that  traces  of  it  are  found  in  most  known  lan- 
guages, particularly  in  the  Western  dialects.  Much  of  this  agree- 
ment between  them  rests  on  forced  and  perverted  combinations. 
Under  the  following  rubrics  may  be  seen  whatever  is  truly  or  very 
probably  Hebrew,  with  the  grounds  on  which  the  coincidence  rests, 

I.  Words  have  passed  from  the  Hebrew  or  Phoenician  language 
into  the  Greek,  and  from  this  into  several  Western  languages. 

1.  A  considerable  number  of  names  of  plants,  spices,  and  similar 
productions,  came  from  the  Orientals  to  the  Greeks,  along  with 
the  objects  to  which  the  name  belonged;  e.  g.  rn):rii5,  ^'julloyor^ 
[the  bitter  aloes ;]  iiTii ,  waawTrog,  [hi/ssop ;]  n^n::,  §8illiov,  [bdel- 
lium;] ir^n,  §vaaog,  [fine  linen;]  {tibyi,  ntxlaS^i],  [a  mass  of  dried 
fruit;]!.)  tl'ijiri,  'i^evog,  [ebony;]  reinbil,  xalB&vri,  [galbanum;] 
■^iraS,  iixj^uvov ,  [cumin ;]  ^53,  it<)nQOQ,[the  cypress ;]  DG'13,  carbasus, 
[linen;]  ri3h3,  ;j'«w>',  [a  shirt;]  robb,  It^avdrig,  -rog,  [the  rosemary, 
incense;]  'a'^'i  ,  i-ridov ,  [the  ledanum ;]  'iij,  vd§Sog,[nard;]  'p  ,  man- 
na ;  lb  ,  i^iQQtt,  [myrrh ;]  ^ri^ ,  vaxqbv,  [nitre ;]  iiip ,  canna,  [the 
cane;]  W'^ISI?,  cassia;  ^i^aSj? ,  y-typd/uafiov,  [cinnamon ;Y  Y'^^^  >  °°^ 
aov,  [the  lily.] 

2.  The  names  of  the  letters. 

3.  The  names  of  some  musical  instruments  and  precious  stones. 
ii5 ,  v&^la,  nablium,  [the  nablion,  a  musical  instrument ;]  'liss  ,  xt- 
rvqa,  [the  hinoor;]  (cri ,  rvfinavov  ?)  ^^p^  ,jasj)is,  [the  jasper ;]  ^'iBO, 
aun(peTQog,  [the  sapphire ;]   ^^'n''J2  ,  ufilgig,  [emery  ?] 

4.  There  are  also  some  others;  e.  g.  b?3a,  xd/iiijkog,  [the  camel;] 
"73 ,  x&dog,  cadus,  [a  caddy  ?]  y\^ ,  xaiatv,  [a  kind  of  offering,  con- 
sisting of  small  calces  ;]  n^b3  ,  iilw^6g,  [a  cage ;]  DO  ,  a'j?,  [a  corn- 
toorm;]  b^'lD ,  aag&^aqu,  saraballa,  [trousers;]  ^ila^y,  &gqa§o}v, 
[earnest  money ;]    Sip ,  't'JqDoj,    [an   ape ;]    '^3 ,   >t&Q,   x&qa,    x&gvog, 

»  See  Herodotus,  iii.  111. 


472  APPENDIX.  [d. 

among  the  lomans,  [a  pasture  ground ;]  pia  ,  auxxog,  [sack  ;'^  '^*^'3  » 
fx&ld-rj^  maltha,  [«  mortar ;]  n3& ,  pinna,  a  little  tower  on  the  top  of  a 
wall. 

5.  The  Hellenistic  Jews  alone  adopted  the  names  of  weights  and 
measures ;    e.  g.  al-Aog,  ainor^  and  (^aqig  for  ^T''2 ,  a  burgh. 

Some  other  words  were  first  introduced  from  the  Arabic  into  the 
Western  languages  in  the  middle  ages;  e.  g.  y^pt2  ,  Arab,  meskeen, 
[poor,]  hence  mesquino;   "^Sfilp ,  Arab,  kittinon,  [cotton.] 

II.  The  following  examples  of  coincidence  between  the  Oriental 
and  one  or  more  Western  languages  belong  to  the  few  marks,  still 
left,  of  close  connection  which  once  prevailed  between  two  lano-uacres 
which  are  now  entirely  separate,  or  they  are  in  some  cases  the  result 
of  chance ;  e.  g.  S'ltji ,  [the  earth  —  erde  in  German,  aarde  m 
Dutch,  erdh,  or  yord,  in  Danish  ;]  '\^_'-^ ,  oIvoq,  wine ;  ns?:  ,  and  nt^s  , 
filayb),  misceo,  [to  mix  —  mischen  in  German,  mikks  in  Danish,  amich- 
ten  in  Persian,  &c. ;]  n'l'i ,  riechen,  [to  smoke;]  niiii ,  sex,  sechs, 
£?,  six;  550,  septem,  sieben,  seven;  ^'vii ,  tawaron,  Arahic,  lavQog^ 
taurus,  a  bull. 

III.  Since  the  identity  of  these  words,  especially  of  those  in  No.  I, 
is  not  to  be  doubted,  some  have  gone  too  far,  and,  from  similar  terms 
and  phrases  in  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  poets,  have  concluded  there 
was  an  actual  connection  between  them.  All  languages,  in  the  same 
stage  of  culture,  resemble  each  other  in  some  points." 


"  See  J.  A.  Ernesti,  De  Vestig.  Ling.  Heb.  in  Ling.  Grtec.  p.  178.  Bezel, 
Griechenland,  Altesle  Gesch.  P.  M.  Ogerii  De  Greec.  et  Lat.  Ling,  cum  Heb. 
AfSnitate.  Bauer,  Hemeneutica,  p.  138.  (Bogani)  Homerus  Ebraizans,  Ox. 
1658.  Lakemacher,  Observatt.  Phil.  pt.  iii.  p.  300.  Rink,  De  Ling.  Orient,  cum 
GrsEcae  mira  Convenientia ;  Regiomonti,4to.  Pfochen,  Diatribe  de  Ling.  Greec. 
N.  T.  Puritate. 


E.]  APPENDIX.  473 

E. 

(See  $  30,  sqq.) 
HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREW   WRITING   CHARACTER." 

ON    THK    WRITING    OF    THE    SHEMITISH    NATIONS    IN    GENERAL.* 

I.  Much  as  the  origin  of  writing,  in  general,  is  lost  in  the  dark- 
ness of  antiquity,  and  is  thereby  incapable  of  being  accurately  in- 
vestigated, yet  this  remains  undoubted, — that  the  alphabet  of  the 
Phcenicians  —  a  Sheraitish  nation,  at  least  one  that  spoke  a  Shemitish 
language  —  is  the  parent  of  many  Oriental  alphabets,  and,  also, 
through  the  influence  of  the  Greek,  of  all  the  Western  alphabets." 
Besides,  it  is  clear,  from  the  names  of  the  Shemitish  letters,  and  the 
nature  of  this  alphabet,  that  it  was  invented  by  a  Shemitish  people  ; 
and,  therefore,  the  two  traditions  of  antiquity,  which  ascribe  this 
invention  to  the  Phoenicians,'^  or  the  Aramaeans,'  have  a  decided 
preponderance  over  the  other  opinion,  less  widely  diffused,  which 
ascribes  that  honor  to  the  ^gyptians.-'^ 

II.  Amid  all  the  diversities  of  the  numerous  Shemitish  alphabets, 
ancient  and  modern,  they  all  agree  in  two  main  features;  namely, 
1.  The  alphabet  contains  only  the  consonants  and  the  three  long 

o  From  Gesenius,  1.  c.  §  40  in  the  original.     See  his  Lehrgebaude,  §  1,  sqq. 

'  On  this  subject  we  possess  no  complete  and  satisfactory  work.  Much  in- 
formation, however,  may  be  found  in  the  following  works  :  Ed.  Bernardus,  Lite- 
ratura  Orbis  eruditi  a  Charactere  Samaritico  deducta ;  1689 ;  ed.  Carl  Morton^ 
1759.  Walton,  Proleg.  ii.  Bnttner,  Figurse  varisB  variceque  Formfie  Literarum 
Heb.,  Syr.,  Arab  ;  Gott.  1769,  fol.  See  his  Comparative  Tables  of  the  Writing 
of  different  Nations  ;  pt.  i.  Gott.  1771,  pt.  ii.  1779,  (unfinished.)  Eichhorn,  Ein- 
leit.  in  A.  T.  vol.  i.  Waru,  Sketches  of  the  Oriental  Writing,  in  his  Allg.  Ge- 
schichte  der  morgenlandischen  Sprachen,  p.  585,  sqq.  tab.  7 — 10.  PavluSy 
Memorabil.  vol.  vi.  p.  102,  sqq.  Nouveau  Traite  diplomatique,  vol.  ii.  p.  90,  of 
Melung's  German  version. 

'  See  Herodotus,  v.  98.     Pliny,  N.  H.  vii.  56.     Tacitus,  Annal.  xi.  14. 

d  Plin.  N.  H.  v  12.     Lucan.  Pharsal.  iii.  220. 

•  Diod.  Sic.  V.  24,  Wesseling's  notes.  Plin.  vii.  56.  See  Tychsen,  Bib.  d. 
alten  Literatur,  vol.  v.  p.  1,  sqq. 

/  Plin.  1.  c.     Cicero,  Nat.  Deorum,  iii.  23.    Plutarch,  Sympos.  xx.  3.     Walton, 
1,  c.  ii.  3.     Buttner,  1.  c.  p.  12. 
VOL.    I.  60 


474  APPENDIX.  [E. 

vowels,  (« ,  T )  "^O  while  the  short  vowels  are  expressed  by  small  signs 
written  above  the  letters,  below,  or  with  them,  or  else  are  entirely 
omitted ;  and,  2.  They  are  all  to  be  read  from  the  right  to  the  left. 
To  the  last  peculiarity,  which  extends  to  all  the  ancient  Oriental  al- 
phabets," the  yEthiopic  forms  the  only  exception ;  but  that  certainly 
does  not  belong  to  this  stock,  and  is  obviously  a  character  formed 
later,  and  by  Greek  influence.'     There  is  no  certain  trace  of  Bous- 

trophedon 

III.  Two  characters  may  be  easily  distinguished  among  the  old 
Shemitish  alphabets,  although  they  flowed  from  one  source :  — 

1.  The  Pkizjiician  character.  To  this  belong,  (1.)  The  inscrip- 
tions at  Cyprus,  Malta,  Carpentras,  and  the  coins  of  the  Phoenicians, 
and  of  their  colonies.  It  has  no  vowels,  and  sometimes  divides  the 
words,  sometimes  not."  (2.)  The  Jewish  coin-letter.  (3.)  The 
Phcenician-iEgyptian  character,  with  three  vowel  signs,  which  Count 
Caylus  deciphered  on  the  mummy  rolls. '^  (4.)  The  Samaritan 
character,  which  proceeded  from  the  first,  as  also  the  old  Greek 
character,  (though  the  language  belonged  to  a  stock  entirely  differ- 
ent,) sometimes  written  from  right  to  left,  sometimes  the  reverse, 
and  sometimes  in  Boustrophedon.* 

2.  The  Hehrew-Chaldee  character.  To  this  belong,  (1.)  The 
square  letters.  (2.)  The  Palmyrene  character,  which  appears  to  be 
a  sort  of  cursive  character  derived  from  the  former,  without  vowels 
and  divisions  of  words,   but  with   ligatures.-''      The   following   are 

"  On  the  jEgyptians,  see  Herodot.  ii.  36 ;  on  the  Greeks,  Montfaucon,  Palae- 
og.  Gr.  p.  118;  on  the  Etruscans,  and  the  Eugubine  tables  in  the  old  Greek 
character,  Gruter,  Thes.  Inscript.  vol.  i.  p.  143.  Compare  ChishuU,  Antiq. 
Asiat.  p.  24,  and  Fabricy,  in  De  Rossi,  Spec.  Var.  Lect.,  (ed.  Schnurrer,)  p.  269. 
Only  the  arrow-headed  characters  and  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  are  excep- 
tions. See  [Grotefend,  Erlauterung  der  Persepolit.  Keilschrift ;  1  vol.  4to.  1837,] 
and  in  Heereii's  Ideen,  vol.  i.  p.  937,  sqq. 

i-  Ludolf,  Hist,  ^thiop.  lib.  ii.  c.  2.     Wahl,  1.  c.  p.  632. 

'  After  the  early  and  defective  attempts  to  decipher  this  alphabet,  by  Scali- 
ger,  Rhenferd,  Bochart,  and  Montfaucon,  Barthelemy  and  Sicinton  acquired  great 
merit  in  this  work,  and  Dutcns  and  Buttner  brought  the  results  of  their  labors 
into  a  form  which  afforded  a  critical  survey.  See  the  literature  of  the  subject  in 
Ekhel,  Doct.  Nummorum  vett.  tom.  iii.  p.  403 ;  Jahn,  1.  c.  vol.  i. ;  and  Heb.  Gram. 

3d  ed The  alphabet  by  Dutens  is  engraved  in  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol. 

viii.  p.  17. 

"^  Caylus,  Recueil  d'Antiq.  Egypt,  vol.  i.  p.  65,  sq.,  and  vol.  v.  p.  77,  sqq. 
Buttner,  tab.  ii.  No.  2.     Tychsen,  1.  c. 

*  Montfaucon,  p.  122. 

/  Barthelemy,  Reflections  sur  I'Alphabet  et  la  Langue  dont  on  se  servoit 


E.]  APPENDIX.  475 

closely  connected  together,  and  somewhat  more  distantly  related  to 
the  others.  (3.)  The  old  Syriac,  or  the  Estrangelo."  (4.)  The  old 
Arabic,  or  the  Cufic,  (a  descendant  of  the  latter,)  but  not  the  oldest 
Arabic  alphabet,  the  Hamjaritic,  which  was,  perhaps,  the  same  with 
the  Hebrew/ 

HEBREW    WRITING.       ITS    ANTIQUITY   AND  VARIOUS    CHARACTERS. 

The  narrations  in  Genesis  do  not  contain  the  smallest  trace  of  the 
art  of  writing.  Even  tradition  (which  elsewhere  places  important 
inventions  so  much  higher  than  historical  criticism  will  allow)  does 
not  seem  to  have  claimed  such  an  antiquity  for  this  art."  On  the  con- 
trary, we  find  there  the  same  means  are  used  to  preserve  the  remem- 
brance of  remarkable  events  that  other  uncultivated  people  employed 
before  the  invention  of  writing ;  such  as  heaps  of  stones,  trees,  altars, 
&.C.,  which  were  named  after  the  event.  (Gen.  xxi.  33,  xxxi.  46,  xxxv. 
7,  1.  11.)"^  The  first  trace  of  Hebrew  writing  is  found  in  the  stone 
tables  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  (Ex.  xxxi.  18,)  but  it  appears  in  such  a 
manner  that  it  seems  to  bear  the  mark  of  historic  truth  in  itself  After 
this,  mention  is  frequently  made  of  writing;  for  example,  the  inscrip- 
tion on  the  ornaments  of  the  high  priest,  (Ex.  xxviii.  9;)  on  Mount 
Ebal,  (Deut.  xxvii.  12,  Josh.  viii.  52;)  even  larger  literary  writings, 
(Num.  xxxiii.  2,  Deut.  xxxi.  24,  Josh,  xviii.  9,  xxiv.  4,  26.)  The  lat- 
ter, and  some  earlier  passages,  (Ex.  xvii.  14,  xxiv.  4,)  are  liable  to  the 
attacks  of  historical  skepticism ;  *  for  the  analogy  of  other  nations 
teaches  us  that  it  is  a  very  long  step  from  the  mere  knowledge  and 
first  use  of  alphabetical  writing  to  a  ready  use  of  it,  and  an  application 
to  literary  purposes,  for  which  centuries  are  often  requisite.-' 

Since  the  first  certain  trace  of  the  art  of  writing  is  found  after  the 

autrefois  h.  Palmyre ;  Paris,  1754.  Swinton,  in  the  Philosoph.  Transactions,  vol. 
xlviii.  pt.  i.  p.  690.  Biittner,  tab.  i.  No.  1.  See  the  engraving  in  Michaelis, 
Gram.  Syriaca.  The  oldest  inscription  belongs  to  49  B.  C,  the  latest  to  the  3d 
century  A.  C.     The  language  is  Syriac. 

"  Michaelis,  1.  c.  p.  14. 

<>  jXiebuhr,  Arabia,  p.  94,  sq.     Pococke,  Spec.  Hist.  p.  155. 

•^  We  can  say  nothing  of  the  rabbinic  fables,  which  ascribe  this  and  other  arts 
to  Adam  and  the  patriarchs.     See  Minister,  on  Gen.  ii. 

<^   Goguet,  Origine  des  Loix,  vol.  i.  p.  172,  in  German  version. 

"  Vater,  Comment,  in  Pentat.  vol.  iii.  p.  522,  sq.  De  Wette,  Archaologie, 
p.  346. 

/  Wolf,  Proleg.  ad  Homerum,  p.  Iviii.,  sq.  and  Ixvi.,  sq. 


476  APPENDIX.  [e. 

Egyptian  period,  the  conjecture  is  natural  and  easy  that  the  He- 
brews received  their  alphabetic  characters  in  ^Egypt ;  and  this  is  the 
more  probable,  if  that  land  is  considered  the  cradle  of  the  art,  or,  at 
least,  to  have  possessed  it  at  an  early  date.  Some,  therefore,  have 
been  inclined  to  pronounce  the  above-named  Phcenician-JEgyptian 
character  to  be  the  oldest  alphabet  of  the  Hebrevi's."  But  it  cannot 
be  proved  that  any  alphabetic  characters  vi'ere  used  in  .^gypt  before 
the  Persian  age,  and,  since  hieroglyphics  prevailed,  it  is  exceedingly 
improbable ; ''  and  it  is,  therefore,  much  more  credible  that,  about 
this  time,  alphabetic  writing  passed  over  from  the  Aramaeans,  or 
Canaanites,  to  the  Hebrews,  with  whom  they  were  related  by  their 
language,  and  especially  since  it  is  not  improbable  that,  during  the 
bondage  in  yEgypt,  other  tribes  of  the  Hebrews  were  wandering, 
with  nomadic  freedom,  on  the  frontiers  of  the  ^Egyptians.  (1  Ch. 
vii.  21.)^ 

The  characters  in  which  we  find  remains  of  the  old  Hebrew 
written  at  this  day,  are  of  three  kinds,  one  of  which  belongs  to  the 
Hebrew-Chaldee,  and  two  to  the  Phoenician  character.  Some  gen- 
eral notice  of  them  may  precede  the  inquiry  upon  their  mutual 
relation. 

1.  The  common  character  of  the  Jewish  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  is 
called  square  letter,  from  the  form  ;  or,  more  commonly,  the  Assyrian 
character.''  The  Talmud  gives  the  reason  of  this  latter  name  cor- 
rectly, —  because  it  came  from  Assyria  with  the  Hebrews.  But  here 
Assyria  is  to  be  taken  in  the  broader  sense  of  Chaldee  and  Babylo- 
nia, as  it  is  often  done  in  the  Bible  and  the  classics;  ^  and,  therefore, 
this  is  justly  called  the  Chaldee  square  letter 

2.  The  character  in  Hebrew  inscriptions  on  the  Jewish  coins 
struck  under  the  reign  of  Simon,  the  Maccabaic  prince,  (era  of  the 


"  Such  is  the  opinion  of  R.   Simon,   Deyllng,   and  others.     See  Eichhorn, 
§61,sqq. 

*  Eichhorn,  Gescli.  d.  Lit.,  (1805,)  vol.  i.  p.  14. 
'  Bcrtholdt,  p.  160.     De  JVette,  1.  c.  p.  31. 

<i  Buxtorf,  Le.x.  Tahn.  p.  241.     Philol.  Theol.  235.     See,  also,  the  Talmud. 
Gemar.  Sanhedrim,  fol.  21,  c.  2. 

*  Num.  xxiv.  22.      Cornp.  Bertholdt,  p.  793.      Herod,  i.  78,  105.     Straho,  v. 

p.  743.     Persia  is  included  in  this  term  by  later  writers,  e.  g.  Ezra  vi.  26 

The  letters  of  the  inscription  on  the  grave  of  Sardanapalus  are  called  Chaldee 
{Athen.  xii.  p.  529)  and  Assyrian  by  the  same  vifriter,  p.  469.  The  Assyrian 
writing  on  the  pillars  at  the  Bosphorus  is  called  Persian  by  Strabo,  xv.  p.  502. 
See  Jahlonski,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  130. 


r..] 


APPENDIX.  477 


Seleucidae,  170 — 172,)  without  vowels,  on  account  of  their  similarity 
with  No.  3,  are  often  improperly  called  Samaritan,  but  correctly, 

Jewish  coin-letters The  figures  of  four  letters  (t,  to,  D,  B) 

do  not  occur;  that  of  5  is  doubtful." 

3.  The  character  of  the  Samaritans,  with  which  they  not  only 
write  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch,  but  also  their  own  Samaritan  and 
Arabic  text.  We  find  it  a  variety  of  the  preceding,  rendered  more 
artificial  in  some  features;  but  this  is  less  obvious  in  the  written  than 
in  the  printed  character.''  The  Samaritans  call  this  "  Hebreio 
writing,"  in  opposition  to  the  square  letter,  which  they  call  "  Ezra's 

writing."" It  has  no  vowels,  but  has  a  diacritical  mark,  and 

observes  a  division  of  words  and  sentences.  In  the  following  inquiries 
upon  the  history  of  the  writing  and  the  alphabet,  the  nature  of  the 
subject  demands  that  the  consonants  should  be  treated  separately 
from  the  vowels. 

MUTUAL    RELATION    OF    CHARACTERS.       DIFFERENT    OPINIONS. 

After  what  has  been  said,  there  rises  the  question,  (not  unimpor 
tant  for  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,)  Which  of  these  was  the 
old  original   alphabet  of  the  Hebrews,  and  what  was  their  mutual 

relation  ? It  is  not  inconsistent  with  our  design  to  make  a 

careful  examination   of  this  subject,  formerly  so   much   contended 

about,'' and  to  present  the  various  views   which  have  been 

entertained,  with  the  reasons  for  them,  to  the  attention  of  the  reader. 


"  Hottinger  and  Reland  long  ago  opposed  the  opinion  that  tliese  coins  were 
struck  before  the  exile.  Their  authenticity  was  contested  by  0.  G.  Tychsen, 
(Unachtheit  d.  Judischen  Munzen ;  Rostock,  1779,)  but  triumphantly  defended 
by  F.  R.  Beyer,  the  chief  writer  on  this  subject,  (De  Nummis  Hebrseo-Sam. ; 
Valent.  1781,  4to.  Num.  Heb.  Sam.  Vindicatio ;  1790,  4to.  Legitimatad  de  las 
Monedas  Heb.  Sam.;  1793.)  See  Eckhel,  I.e.  iii.  p.458,  and  Tychsen,  in  Com. 
Soc.  Gottingen,  vol.  viii.  and  xi.  See  the  literature  in  Rasche,  1.  c,  (1729,) 
and  WahVs  Erdebeschreibung  von  Ostindien,  p.  404.     R.  Asarias  (in  Montfau- 

con,  p.  122)  collected  the  first  alphabet  of  these  characters See  Beyer, 

De  Num.  Heb.  Sam.  p. 224;  Jahn,  Arch'dologie,  vol.  i.  §  2;  his  Hebrew  Gram., 
3d  ed.;  and  Einleit.  in  A.  T.  vol.  i. 

'  See  specimens  in  Cellarius,  Epist.  Sam.  p.  1.  Van  Vloten,  Spec.  Cod.  Sam. ; 
Lugd.  1803.     Blanchini,  Evangel.  Quad.  p.  604,  tab.  2. 

'  Antiquitatt.  Eccles.  Orient,  p.  125,  130.     Eichhorn,  Rep.  vol.  xiii.  p.  288. 

^  See  the  writings  in  Wolf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  420,  iv.  p.  164.  RosenmuUer, 
Handbuch,  vol.  i.  p.  564.     Loscher,  p.  200,  213.     Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  227,  233, 


478  APPENDIX.  [e. 

The  various  opinions  may  be  referred  to  the  three  following 
classes :  — 

1.  Writers  proceeded  from  the  obvious  appearance  that  the 
square  letters  vv^ere  only  used  in  religious  writings,  while  the  coin- 
letter  was  employed  for  more  profane  or  common  purposes,  and  so 
naturally  came  to  the  opinion  that  the  Hebrews  had  two  kinds  of 
writing  at  the  same  time,  the  one  (the  square  letter)  a  sacred  and 
sacerdotal  character,  the  other  (the  coin-letter)  a  character  used  for 
the  circumstances  of  common  life.  Following  the  steps  of  some 
Jewish  scholars,"^  this  opinion  was  greedily  received  by  such  Chris- 
tian critics  as  deemed  it  an  apologetic  duty  to  represent  every  unim- 
portant external  of  the  holy  books  as  sacred  and  very  ancient.  The 
younger  Buxtorf,*  in  particular,  belongs  to  this  class;  he  connected 
this  opinion  with  the  high  antiquity  of  the  square  letter  in  the  follow- 
ing manner :  The  square  letter  was  the  oldest,  and  the  original 
alphabet  of  the  Hebrews ;  but,  before  the  exile,  the  Samaritan 
character  was  also  used  at  the  same  time,  first  for  holy  things,  and 
finally  for  common  life.  During  the  exile,  the  priests,  and  the 
learned  portion  of  the  people,  cultivated  the  sacred  character,  while 
those  who  remained  behind  in  Palestine,  from  whom  the  Samaritans 
sprung,  used  the  common  character.  Ezra  brought  the  former  with 
him  from  the  exile,  and  extended  it  more  widely;  therefore  it  was 
called  Assyria?},  i.  e.  Chaldee.  The  common  character  was  mainly 
used  by  the  Samaritans,  but  by  the  Jews  only  occasionally ;  for  ex- 
ample, on  their  coins [This  opinion  is,  indeed,  supported  by 

the  analogy  of  other  Oriental  languages;  by  some  passages  in  the 
Bible,  which  are  capable  of  a  different  explanation  ;  by  the  authority 
of  TertulJian,  who  did  not  understand  Hebrew  ;  and  by  the  fact  that 
the  Jewish  coins  do  not  contain  the  same  letters  as  the  manuscripts. 
This  is  the  substance  of  the  author's  remarks,  which,  in  this  sentence, 
I  have  condensed,  and  not  translated.] 

2.  A  careful  consideration  must  lead  to  the  other  conjecture, — 
that  we  find  the  square  letter  in  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  Jews, 
while  the  other  character  belonged  mainly  to  the  Samaritans,  the 
descendants  of  the  old  kingdom  of  Israel.  Before  the  exile,  there 
may  have  been  this  difference  between  the  two  kingdoms,  Judah 
and  Israel,  in  respect  to  the  writing  character ; "  and  this  conjecture 

"  Ohad.  Bartenora,  ad  Mischnam,  Tr.  Jadaim,  4,  5.  R.  Jacob,  in  En  Israel, 
fol.  413.     Shalsheleth  Hakkab.  fol.  89. 

»  Diss.  Philol.  Theol. ;  Basil.  1662,  4to.  No.  4. 
'  Paiiivs,  1.  c.  p.  114. 


E.]  APPENDIX.  479 

is  supported  by  the  fact  that,  in  other  respects,  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
often  inclined  to  the  customs  of  the  neighboring  Phoenicians.  But 
how,  then,  can  it  be  explained  that  the  same  character  appears  on 
the  coins  struck  at  Jerusalem?  Whence  the  name  Hebrew  or 
Assyrian  writing?     (See  §2,  1,  3,  above.) 

3.  There  rem.ains  only  one  other  view,  which  is,  that  each  kind 
of  writing  arose  one  after  the  other,  so  that  one  gradually  displaced 

the  other Here  there  are  two  parties  directly  opposed  to 

one  another.  The  one  gives  the  precedence  to  the  square  character, 
the  other  to  the  Phoenician-Samaritan.  The  opinion  of  the  former, 
which  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  most  modern  Hebrew  scholars, 
has  been  already  given  above.  But  there  is  another,  and  more 
ancient  opinion,  or  legend  of  the  rabbins,  opposed  to  it,  which 
maintains  that  the  Hebrews,  before  the  exile,  used  an  ancient  charac- 
ter, which  was  the  present  Samaritan,  but  Ezra  exchanged  it  for  the 
present  character,  which  had  an  Assyrian-Chaldaic  origin. 

First,  let  us  follow  this  legend  to  its  sources,  in  order  to  subject  it 
to  an  impartial  examination.  It  is  found  partly  in  the  Babylonian 
and  Jerusalem  Talmud,  and  partly  in  the  writings  of  Origen  and 
Jerome,  who  received  it  from  their  rabbinic  teachers.  In  the  first  it  is 
said,  (Sanhed.  sect.  2,  fol.  21,  col.  2,  fol.  22,  col.  1,)  "In  the  begin- 
ning, the  Law,  the  Hebrew  writing,  and  the  sacred  language,  were 
given  to  the  Israelites;  but  again,  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  the  Assyrian 
writing  and  the  Aramaean  language  (?)  were  given  them ;  but  the 
Israelites  chose  the  Assyrian  writing  and  the  sacred  language,  and 
left  the  Hebrew  writing  and  Aramaean  language  to  fools,  \idiotis.'\ 
Who  were  the  fools?     The  Samaritans,  says  R.  Chasda." 

Ibid.  cap.  I  :  "It  may  be  that  the  Law  was  not  given  by  the  hand 
of  Ezra,  but  the  writing  was  changed  by  his  hand  ;  and  it  is  called 
Assyrian  because  it  came  up  from  Assyria  with  them." 

Origen  derives  authority  from  the  same  source,  and  says"  that,  in 
the  old  alphabet,  thau  had  the  form  of  a  cross,  and  that,  in  certain 
manuscripts  of  the  Seventy,  the  name  Jehovah  was  written  in  the 
old  Hebrew ;  and  adds,  "  It  is  said  Ezra  used  different  letters  after 
the  captivity."  It  is  also  an  error  of  this  Father,  who  was  not  very 
well  skilled  in  the  Hebrew  language,  that  Jehovah  was  written  in 
the  old,  i.  e.  the  Samaritan  characters ;  but  this  passage  shows  the 
author  was  acquainted  with  the  former  legend. 

Jerome  speaks  more  clearly  and  boldly,  deriving  his  authority  from 

"  In  Ezek.  ix.  4.    Hexap.  i.  p.  86,  ed.  Montfaueon;  ii.  94,  ed.  Bahrdt. 


480  APPENDIX.  [e. 

Origen,  or,  more  directly,  from  his  rabbinic  teachers  :  "  It  is  certain 
that  Ezra  the  Scribe  and  Doctor  of  the  Law,  after  the  taking  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  restoration  of  the  temple  under  Zerubabel,  /?;- 
vented  (reperisse)  other  letters,  which  we  now  use,  and  which  had 
been  the  characters  of  the  Samaritans  and  Hebrews  up  to  that 
time.'"'  The  same  tradition  leads  the  Samaritans  to  call  the  square 
letter  Ezra's  icriting. 

Now,  even  if  we  do  not  consider  that  Jerome,  according  to  his 
custom,*  states  as  a  fact  what  Origen  only  mentions  as  a  tradition  or 
opinion,  and  makes  Ezra  invent  a  character  which  he  only  intro- 
duced according  to  the  Jewish  opinion,  —  the  tradition,  as  he  relates 
it,  contains  a  contradiction ;  for  it  states  the  old  alphabet  had  a  ri  in 
the  form  of  a  cross,  and  this  was  the  Samaritan  alphabet,  in  which  the 

ri  has  not  this  form However,  the  contradiction   disappears 

when  we  refer  to  the  coin-letter,  which  the  Jews  also  called  a  Sa- 
maritan character,  and  which  may  resemble  the  character  in  the  Sa- 
maritan manuscripts  still  more  closely.  This  must  be  considered  as 
the  sense  of  the  Jewish  authority ;  and  the  question,  then,  is  merely 
this  :  How  far  is  this  account — after  making  the  necessary  modifica- 
tions—  confirmed  or  weakened  by  other  considerations  and  argu- 
ments? A  close  examination  will  show  that  many  of  the  arguments 
which  are  frequently  used  are  by  no  means  satisfactory ;  and  yet  the 
result  may  be,  that  it  contains  substantially  the  truth,  although,  by 
reason  of  the  imperfection  of  materials  in  our  possession,  the  historic 
fact  cannot  be  established ;  and  the  approbation  it  has  received  from 
many  modern  critics  has  been  too  unconditional  and  decided,  and 
sometimes  even  hasty  and  uncritical." 

(1.)  The  former  defenders  of  this  opinion  derived  their  chief 
argument   from   the    Samaritan   Pentateuch,  which   they    supposed 


■^  Prolog,  ad  Reg.  Opp.  iv.  p.  7.     See  Eusehius,  Chron.  ad  A.  M.  4740,  and 
Scaligers  note.     Spanheim,  De  Usu  Num.  Opp.  i.  p.  63. 

'  Faier,  in  Harmers  Observations,  vol.  i.  p.  39,  148. 
The  first  Jewish  scholar  in  modern  times,  who  declared  in  favor  of  this,  was 
R.  Joseph  Albo,  (about  1400,)  in  Sepher  Ikkarim,  iii.  16,  fol.  81,  col.  2.  Then  it 
became  the  favorite  opinion  of  the  Anti-Buxtorfian  school,  which  contended  for 
the  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  preference  of  the  Samaritan  text  and  ver- 
sion. See  Jo.  Morinus,  Exercit.  in  Pent.  Sam.  p.  91.  Scaliger,  in  Euseb.  Chron. 
p.  62.  Lud.  Cappellus,  Arcan.  Punct.  i.  6.  Diatribe  de  veris,  etc.  Heb.  Lit. ;  Am- 
stelod.  1645.     Walton,  Proleg.  iii.  30,  sqq.     Kennicott,  Diss.  i.  p.  527.     Houbigant, 

Prol.  49 Among  the  moderns,  Eichhorn,  Augvsti,  and  Bertholdt,  in  their 

Introductions,  and  Hug,  Gesch.  d.  Buchstabenschrift,  p.  6. 


E.]  APPENDIX.  481 

descended  from  Moses  in  a  straight  line,  and,  remaining  free  from  all 
Jewish  influences  from  the  time  of  Rehoboam,  contained  the  old 
character,  in  its  most  correct  form.  But  we  cannot  defend  the 
existence  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  before  the  exile,"  and  must 
maintain  that  it  is  a  copy  of  the  Jewish  original,  written  in  the 
Samaritan  character,  about  the  time  when  the  Samaritan  form  of 
worship  was  established.  The  Samaritans  wrote  the  Hebrew  codex 
in  their  own  characters,  as  they  write  the  Arabic  at  this  day,  as  the 
Syrians  write  Arabic  in  their  Syriac  letters,  and  as  the  Jews  formerly 
wrote  Arabic  and  Persian,  and  even  Spanish  and  German,  in  their 
own  characters.''  Notwithstanding  this,  the  existence  of  this  charac- 
ter among  the  Samaritans  is  most  easily  explained,  if  it  is  admitted 
to  have  been  the  character  of  their  ancestors,  which  was  better  pre- 
served by  those  who  remained  in  the  land,  than  by  the  Jews  who 
returned  from  a  foreign  country. 

"With  this  question  some  have  connected  the  hypothesis,  that  a 
manuscript  written  in  the  Samaritan  or  ancient  character  lay  at  the 
foundation  of  the  Alexandrian  version  of  the  Pentateuch;  and  they 
have  mainly  sought  to  prove  this  by  the  confusion  of  letters,  which 
are  similar  in  the  Samaritan,  but  not  in  the  Chaldee  alphabet.''  But 
we  need  only  examine  the  examples  with  a  little  attention  to  see  that 

scarce  one  of  them  has  the  smallest  value  as  an  argument 

According  to  the  author's  investigations,  the  variants  of  the  Seventy, 
which  seem  to  have  arisen  from  confounding  similar  letters  in  the 
Pentateuch,  as  well  as  in  the  other  books,  refer  to  the  square  letter."* 

(2.)  The  names  of  several  letters  can  only  be  explained  by  a 
reference  to  their  figures  in  the  Phoenician-Samaritan  alphabet,  and 
not  by  the  figures  of  the  square  letters,  which  shows  that  the  former 

is  older  than  the  other,  and  nearer  to  the  original  alphabet 

But,  in  respect  to  other  letters,  this  remark  may  be  made  in  favor  of 
the  square  characters,"  and,  in  some  cases,  the  figure  of  neither 
alphabet  applies  to  the  name.  This  circumstance  only  proves  that 
both  alphabets  were  derived,  in  different  times,  from  the  original,  in 
which,  doubtless,  the  conformity  between  the  name  and  the  figure  of 
the  letter  prevailed  throughout ;  and  that  each  has  preserved  some 
traces  of  this  conformity,  which  were  wanting  to  the  other.^     But 

"  Comm.  de  Pent.  Sam.  §  2.  ''  Sinum,  Hist.  crit.  V,  T.  i.  10,  73. 

'  Hassmcamp,  De  Pent  LXX.,  &c. ;  1765.     Eichhorn,  §  183. 

<*  Gesenius,  Com.  p.  12. 

•  Rhenferd,  Opp.  Phil.  ed.  MMius,  (1722,  4to.,)  p.  225. 

/  Simon,  1.  c.  i.  13.     Michadis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  xxii.  p.  122.     Pavtus,  1.  c,  p.  117. 

VOL.    I.  61 


482  APPENDIX.  [e. 

this  circumstance  affords  little  evidence  to  enable  us  to  determine 
which  was  the  most  ancient  among  the  Hebrews.  It  is  more  im- 
portant for  the  antiquity  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet,  that, 

(3.)  We  can  trace  it  much  farther  in  history  than  the  square 
letter.  We  have  a  very  early  and  certain  proof  of  it  in  the  old 
Greek  character  in  the  inscription  at  Sigeum  and  Amycla,"  which  is 
derived  from  the  Phcenician,  and  closely  allied  to  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  cannot  trace  the  Hebrew  Chaldee  character  on  historic 
monuments '  beyond  the  birth  of  Christ,  nor  hij  combination  above  the 
age  of  the  Seventy.  There  is  an  important  probability  in  favor  of 
the  higher  antiquity  of  the  former  character,  though  the  absence 
of  historical  testimony  is  not  decisive  against  the  use  of  the  square 
letter  among  the  Hebrews. 

All  the  previous  arguments,  especially  1  and  3,  obviously  render 
it  highly  probable  that  the  Phoenician-Samaritan  character  was  that 
first  used  by  the  Hebrews. 

(4.)  An  explanation  of  this  legend  will  bring  us  still  nearer  cer- 
tainty. In  respect  to  outward  authority,  it  is  opposed  by  another, 
Avhich  is  supported  by  a  far  greater  number  of  Jewish  teachers ;  but 
that  is  the  oldest  tradition,  which  seems  to  have  prevailed  in  the  time 
of  Origen  and  Jerome ;  and  the  definite  statement  respecting  the  let- 
ter ti  contains  an  historic  fact,  which,  though,  perhaps,  it  is  misrep- 
resented, cannot  have  been  taken  up  at  random.  On  the  contrary,  the 
other  and  more  modern  Jewish  story  has  rather  the  appearance  of 
an  apology,  and  seems  to  be  the  production  of  an  age  when  it  was 
thought  important  to  discover  something  holy,  and  of  primeval  an- 
tiquity, in  the  outward  form  of  the  Bible. 

(5.)  But  perhaps  the  most  important  fact  is  found  in  the  names  of 
the  two  alphabets,  (the  square  letter  being  called  Assyrian,  and  the 
writing  of  Ezra  ;  the  other  called  Hebrew.)     Both  are  probably  older 

than  this  tradition,  and  independent  of  it It  is  often  the  case 

that  the  last  trace  of  an  historical  fact  is  discernible  in  such  names, 
and  it  is  not  to  be  despised  ;  and  in  this  case,  it  can  only  be  explained 
by  supposing  the  Assyrian  character  to  mean  properly  the  Assyrian, 
that  is,  the  Chaldee,  and  the  other  to  be  the  original  Hebrew.  The 
Palmyrene    inscriptions    show   it   is   a  fact   that  the  Aramaean   was 

originally  written  in  this  character Is  it  probable  the  old 

and  genuine  Hebrew  character  would  be  called  Assyrian,  because  it 

"  Chishvll,  1.  c.  p.  2.  Nouveau  Traite  de  Diplomatique,  vol.  ii.  p.  66.  Beller- 
mann,  Archaologie,  p.  60. 

*  The  Palmyrene  inscriptions  belong  here. 


K.]  APPENDIX.  483 

was  more  extensively  used  after  Ezra  returned  from  Chaldasa'? 
How  much  more  probable  that  it  was  itself  the  character  of  the  As- 
syrians and  Chaldees !  Would  the  Samaritan  be  called  the  Hebrew 
character,  because  it  was  used  by  the  common  people  of  the  He- 
brews 1  Were  the  others  less  Hebrews  1  Where  was  the  difference 
between  them  1 

PROBABLE    RESULT. 

If  we  now  unite  the  results  of  our  previous  inquiries  with  some 
other  considerations,  we  think  the  following  statements  may  be  con- 
sidered probable :  — 

1.  Many  of  the  above  arguments  agree  in  this,  —  that  the  influence 
of  the  exile  and  the  Chaldee  writing  character  produced  a  change  in 
the  old  Hebrew  character,  like  that  produced  in  the  language  itself 
The  legend  ascribes  this  change  (which,  from  its  nature,  could  only 
be  brought  about  gradually,  and  which  must  belong  to  an  entire  age) 
to  Ezra,  who,  in  many  Jewish  legends,  appears  as  a  collective  name, 
to  whom  was  referred  every  thing  which  was  done  in  this  whole  age 
in  behalf  of  learning.  This  truth  may  lie  in  the  story  of  Ezra, 
namely,  that  the  new  writing  came  from  Chaldaea,  as  the  Phoenician 
origin  of  the  Greek  writing  lies  in  the  story  of  Cadmus.  It  is  still 
matter  of  controversy,  whether  the  new  writing  was  directly  Chaldee, 
or  a  mixture  of  the  old  and  the  Chaldee ;  but  the  former  is  more 
probable."  Perhaps  it  is  true  that,  before  this  change  and  after- 
wards, while  this  writing  was  current,  and  used  with  freedom,  many 
letters  occur,  which  cannot  be  explained  from  the  alphabet  then 
existing.  The  great  variety  and  freedom  of  the  Phoenician  charac- 
ters render  this  plain 

2.  In  the  age  of  the  Seventy,  the  writing  was  essentially  like  the 
present  square  letter,  and  the  manuscripts,  not  excepting  the  Penta- 
teuch, from  which  this  version  was  made,  were  written  with  such 
letters.  Among  other  peculiarities,  the  final  letters  were  wanting. 
The  proof  of  this  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  numerous  deviations 
of  the  text  of  the  Seventy  from  the  common  text,  so  far  as  they  arise 
from  corresponding  similar  letters,  can  be  explained  by  the  square 
character.*     The  passage  Matt.  v.  8  may  be  brought  to  sustain  this 

"  Jahn,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  326,     Eichhorn,  §  65. 

*  Cappellus,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  581.     Morinus,  De  Ling.  Prim.  p.  236. 


484  APPENDIX.  [e. 

proposition,  for  jod  was  the  smallest  letter  in  the  time  of  Christ ; 
consequently  the  square  letter  prevailed 

3.  The  Maccabees  chose  for  the  coins  the  ancient  character, 
which,  it  is  probable,  had  not  then  gone  entirely  out  of  use,  in  the 
same  way  that  the  Cufic  character  was  taken,  by  the  Arabians,  as 
a  coin-letter,  some  centuries  after  the  introduction  of  the  nishi.  The 
Maccabees  did  this  from  their  fondness  for  the  old,  and  perhaps  be- 
cause it  was  akin  to  the  Phoenician  character ;  and  they  hoped  to 
favor  their  trade  and  commerce  by  means  of  it.  The  tendency  of 
this  age  to  preserve,  imitate,  and  restore,  the  ancient  Hebrew,  is  well 
known  and  obvious.  Here  it  shows  itself  particularly  in  the  use  of 
the  old  Hebrew  dialect  for  inscriptions,  even  in  the  old  name  Israel, 
instead  of  the  modern  JudaJi."^ 

4.  We  can  now  lay  aside  the  question  whether  the  Assyrian 
writing,  in  the  time  of  the  Seventy,  was  a  smaller  and  more  flowing 
character,  (like  the  Palmyrene,)  from  which,  afterwards,  the  square 
letter  was  formed,  as  a  sort  oi  fractur,  under  the  hands  of  the  bibli- 
cal caligraphists."  It  is  true  that  Jerome  mentions  the  Hebrew  as 
a  small  character,  injurious  to  the  eyes."  The  addition  of  the  final 
letters,  and  other  changes  mentioned  below,  prove  that  in  this  period 
other  alterations  were  made  for  the  sake  of  caligraphy 

5.  This  statement  differs  from  one  that  resembles  it  in  an  es- 
sential point,  namely,  the  opinion  that  the  square  letter  was  gradually 
formed,  by  the  art  of  the  caligraphists,  from  the  old  Phoenician  charac- 
ter, a  little  after  the  time  of  the  Maccabees."  It  appears  the  two 
alphabets  differ  from  one  another,  actually  and  essentially,  as  belong- 
ing to  two  different  lines :  this  is  shown  by  the  difference  between 
many  letters,  but  in  particular  by  the  fact  that  several  square  letters 
approach  nearer  the  original  form  than  the  Phoenician 

C.  The  objections  that  arise  to  this  alteration  of  the  character  are 
easily  answered.  "  It  is  not  conceivable,"  says  one,  "  that  Ezra,  who 
adhered  so  pedantically  to  the  old,  should  have  taken  this  new  char- 
acter from  the  profane  and  hated  Chaldees."  But  it  is  not  Ezra 
who  did  this ;  but  his  age  and  the  circumstances  brought  it  about. 
If  he  had  wished,  he  could  as  little  hinder  it  as  he  could  restrain  the 
influence  of  the  Chaldee  language. 

"But  old  accounts  —  for  example,  the  book  of  Ezra  and  Josephus 
•—say  nothing  of  this."  But  we  have  not  a  detailed  history  of  those 
times.     It  may  have  taken  place  so  gradually  that  it  did  not  become 


"  Eichhorn,  1.  c.     Gesenius,  Lex.  Heb.  sub  his  vocibus.     Michaelis,  Or.  Bib. 
vol.  xxii.  p.  117.    Jerome,  Prol.  ad  Ezech.  xx.     De  Wctte.  Archaol.  p.  347. 


F.] 


APPENDIX.  485 


an  object  of  historic  interest.  "  A  transcription  of  manuscripts 
would  be  equally  tedious  and  unnecessary."  We  are  not  to  think  of 
such  a  transcription ;  for,  as  the  characters  gradually  changed,  the 
early  letters  would  not  be  forgotten  so  soon  as  to  require  it 


F. 

(See  $30.) 

ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREW  VOWELS, 
ACCENTS,  &c." 

<§>I. 

SURVEY    OF    THE    SUBJECT. 

1.  It  was  mentioned  above,  as  a  striking  peculiarity  of  the  Shem- 
itish  languages,  that  in  most,  and  probably  in  all  of  them,  only  the 
consonants  were  written ;  that  all  the  other  marks  of  the  tone,  par- 
ticularly of  the  short  vowel  tones,  were  omitted  in  writing,  and 
were  first  gradually  fixed  at  a  later  date,  by  vowels  and  diacritical 
marks.  The  question  now  arises.  Was  this  the  case  with  the  He- 
brew characters?  The  want  of  historical  facts  has  given  occasion  to 
a  tedious  controversy  among  the  philologists  who  have  written  upon 
the  Bible,  and  to  the  most  various  opinions.  Some  have  maintained 
the  vowel  points  were  contemporary  with  the  original  consonants,  or, 
at  least,  that  they  were  introduced  by  Ezra;  while  others  maintain 
that  they  are  the  invention  of  anonymous  Jews,  who  lived  at  a  later 
period,  namely,  after  the  fifth  century  since  Christ.* 


"  Translated  from  Gesenius,  1.  c,  §  48  in  the  original. 

''  The  following  is  a  sketch  of  the  different  views  that  have  prevailed,  and  of 
the  literature  of  the  subject.  Almost  all  the  Jewish  writers  of  the  middle  ages 
maintain  the  vowels  are  contemporary  with  the  consonants;  or,  at  least,  that 
they  were  introduced  by  Ezra  and  the  Great  Synagogue.  (See  Buxtorf,  De 
Vocal,  pt.  i.  ch.  1 — 4.)  But  there  are  some  exceptions  to  this  remark  ;  namely, 
there  are  some  hints  in  Men  Ezra's  book  Zachuth,  fol.  138,  193,  a  doubtful 
passage  in  the  book  Cosri,  pt.  iii.  §  31,  ed.  Buxtorf.  (See  Buxtorf,  De  Vocal. 
p.  26,  sqq.  On  the  contrary,  Morinus,  Exercit.  ii.  13,  2.)  The  book  Zohar 
seems  to  have  reference  to  such  opposite  opinions  and  doubts,  in  making  its 


486  APPENDIX.  [f. 

2.  Since  the  later  and  gradual  formation  of  the  present  vowel 
system  may  be  considered  as  established,  it  will  be  assumed  in  this 
place,  and  all  controversy  and  critical  arguments  will  be  omitted, 
while  we  conjure  up  what  we  can  respecting  the  pronunciation 
among  the  Hebrews,  and  the  signs  of  pronunciation,  with  a  short 
examination  of  the  vocalization 


^2. 

PERIOD    WHEN    THE    HEBREW    WAS    A    LIVING    LANGUAGE. 

I.  When  impartially  estimated,  the  preponderance  is  found  on  the 
side  of  those  arguments  which  show  that  the  Hebrew  language, 
during  the  entire  period  when  it  was  a  living  language,  was  written 
without  any  vowels  or  diacritical  marks.     In  favor  of  this  we  have, 

1.  The  nature  and  analogy  of  the  cognate  Shemitish  characters. 
Here,  where  facts  speak  for  themselves,  the  objection  that  the  inven- 

strong  defence  of  the  antiquity  of  the  vowels.  (See  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  76.) 
These  Jewish  opinions  were  embraced  by  some  Christians  who  lived  at  the  time, 
and  probably  received  them  from  the  Jews;  e.  g.  by  Rmjmond  Martini,  (about 
1278,  in  his  Pugio  Fidei,  iii.  19,)  Perez  de  Valentia,  (about  1430,  Introd.  ad  Ex- 
pos, in  Psalmos;  see  Semler's  Hist.  Theol.  Abhandlungen,  i.  4,)  and  JVicholas  de 
Lyra,  (ad  Hos.  ix.)  They  were  followed  by  the  reformers,  Luther,  (on  Gen. 
xxxvi.  38,  12,  tract,  de  Shamphorash  ;  on  the  contrary,  see  Hody,  De  Bibl.  Text, 
p.  .561,  Heumann,  Consp.  Reipub.  Lit.  cap.  iii.  c.  14,)  Calvin,  (on  Zech.  ix.  7,) 
by  Pellican,  (Prsef.  ad  Pent.,)  and  others. 

The  modernness  of  the  vowels  has  been  defended  minutely,  and  on  good 
ground,  by  Elias  Levita,  (Masoreth  Hammasoreth,  translated  by  Semler ;  1772.) 
The  elder  Buxtorf  AecXaxeA  against  him.  The  subject  was  (^scussed  more  ear- 
nestly after  Lud.  Cappellus  published  his  Arcanum  Punct.  revelatum,  which 
was  assailed  by  Buxtorf,  (ubi  sup.,)  to  which  Cappellus  replied  in  his  Vindiciis 
Arcani  Punct.  revelati.  The  opinion  of  Cappellus  gradually  prevailed,  and  has 
even  been  exaggerated  by  some.  Yet  the  doctrine  that  the  vowel  points  were 
original,  and  even  inspired,  became  an  article  of  the  creed  in  Switzerland. 
Formula  Consensus,  canon  ii.  —  The  most  modern  defenders  of  the  antiquity  of 
the  vowels,  who  think  they  were  used  before  the  time  of  the  Talmud,  are 
G.  O.  Tychsen,  in  Eichhorn's  Rep.  vol.  iii.  p.  102,  and  Jac.  Robertson,  in  the  dis- 
sertation prefixed  to  his  Clavis  Pentateuchi ;  Edinburgh,  1770,  Bvo. 

A  few  writers  choose  a  middle  course,  and  ascribe  to  the  Hebrews  a  few 
ancient  vowel  characters,  which  were  affixed  to  some  difficult  words.  This, 
with  different  modifications,  is  the  opinion  of  J.  H.  Ilotlinger,  (Thes.  Phil.  p. 
401,)  Jo.  Pridcaux,  (Lect.  de  Capt.  Relig.  ;  Oxon.  1648,  p.  196,  Opp.  omnia, 
p.  163,)  Humphrey  Prideaux,  (Connection,  &c.,)  and  Mhcrt  Srhultens,  (Instit. 
Ling.  Heb.  p.  48,  62,  sqq.)     They  have  been  followed  by  Michaclis,  (Vermischte 


F.]  APPENDIX.  487 

tion  of  an  alphabet  consisting  entirely  of  consonants  is  higlily  un- 
natural  and  inconceivable,  can  have  but  little  weight." 

2.  Jewish  tradition.  To  this  belongs  the  direct  assertion  of  most 
of  the  Jewish  scholars,  that  the  vowels  were  published  orally  by  Moses, 
and  were  written  down  and  fixed  by  Ezra  and  the  Great  Synagogue. 
The  indirect  testimony  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  synagogue  is  of  equal 
importance.  The  strong  injunction  not  to  point  those  manuscripts, 
among  a  people  where  all  sacred  knowledge,  and  every  sacred  deed, 
is  a  matter  of  tradition,  rests  on  the  belief  or  the  knowledge  that 
it  was  so  formerly.  Among  the  Arabians,  the  vowel  signs  were  first 
added  to  the  Koran  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader ;  but  the  Jews 
did  not  venture  to  disfigure  the  divine  book  by  any  human  addition, 
and  afterwards  they  referred  the  reader  to  the  pointed  text  only  to 
prepare  him  to  read  the  unpointed.' 

3.  To  these  must  be  added  the  evidence  of  some  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  are  intelligible  only  on  the  supposition  that 
their  author  read  and  wrote  without   vowels."     Perhaps  this  argu- 

Schriften,  Th.  ii.  No.  1,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  ix.  p.  82, 88,)  by  Eichhorii,  (Einleit.  vol.  i.,) 
and  others. 

See  a  collection  of  the  various  opinions,  and  reference  to  the  literature,  in 
IVoIf,  Bib.  Heb.  vol.  ii.  p.  475,  vol.  iv.  p.  214,  sqq.,  with  the  arguments,  pro  and 
con,  in  Carpzov,  Crit.  sac.  p.  242,  sqq.,  and  LOscher,  De  Causis  Ling.  Heb.  p.  275, 
sqq.  Seethe  arguments  in  its  favor  in  Walton,  Froleg.  iii.  39,  and  those  which 
oppose  it,  in  Bauer,  Crit.  sac.  p.  128,  sqq. 

"  See  Herder,  Spirit  of  Heb.  Poetry,  vol.  i.  p.  28. 

*  Some  later  Jews  give  us  the  erroneous  view  that  the  Cabalists  first  intro- 
duced the  custom  of  reading  the  Law  without  points  in  order  to  make  it  am 
biguous.  They  have  been  followed,  in  this  opinion,  by  Buxtorf,  (De  Antiq.  Vo- 
cal, p.  35,  sqq.,)  Carpzov,  (Crit.  sac.  p. 267.)  See,  on  the  other  side,  Bauer,  Crit. 
sac  p.  142. 

"  Gen.  xix.  37 ;  2i<i>2  is  explained  by  e  patre  {1^)2  .)  Here  not  only  the 
vowels,  but  the  quiescent  T  seem  to  have  been  wanting.  Gen.  xxxi.  47;  15^3 
is  explained  as  hill  of  testhnony,  (l^'b^ ,)  where  the  usual  pronunciation  is 
wholly  overlooked.  1.11;  ti*i'l2>2  ^lZ^,tke  threshing-fioor,  or  the  province  of 
^gypt,  is  explained  by  ">a  ^^N; ,  mourning  of  JEgijpt.  The  first  is,  doubtless, 
to  be  preferred.  Judg.  xv.  18  ;  the  name  ''Hi  n!ol  {height  of  the  jaw-bone)  is 
derived  from  the  circumstance  that  Samson  cast  the  jaw-bone  out  of  his  hand, 
and  therefore  from  n?a'1 ,  to  ca^t.     So  it  would  mean  jaw-hone-cast.     But  this 

could  be  true  only  if  pointed,  —  i)lb  fl?3'1  >  —  and  fi^'n  presupposes  a  derivation 
5:om  fi^*1 .     2  Kings  xxii.  9;  it  now  stands  ^tDfl  ']5'!Z!l   Sti'^l ,  arid  there  came 


488  APPENDIX.  [f. 

ment  may  be  weakened  by  the  fact  that  the  violent  etymologies  of 
the  Old  Testament  often  turn  on  the  consonants  as  well  as  the  vowels; 
but  it  is  confirmed, 

4.  By  the  certain  reference  which  was  made  in  the  following 
age  to  this  earlier  period. 

II.  It  may  be  true  that  such  writings  would  be  difficult  to  read, 
and  ambiguous ;  but  this  fact  is  no  objection  to  it.  A  knowledge  of 
the  language,  especially  the  habit  of  using  it  as  a  vernacular  tongue, 
compensates  for  much,  and  is  quite  indispensable  in  reading  the 
modern  languages,  which  are  written  accordnig  to  their  etymology, 
(such  as  the  French  and  English.)  But  is  not  the  reading  of  the 
Talmud  very  difficult  for  us?  In  general,  easiness  of  reading  )nust 
not  be  sought  among  the  Orientals.  At  this  day,  few  nations  learn  to 
read  more  slowly  and  painfully  than  the  Arabians,  and  few  writings 
are  so  little  read,  or  so  often  misunderstood,  as  theirs.  Even  their 
own  learned  men  will  seldom  read  an  unpointed  manuscript  which 
they  are  unacquainted  with,  without  preparation."  The  frequent 
mistakes  made  in  reading  the  Koran  mainly  gave  occasion  to  the 
introduction  of  the  vowels.' 

III.  In  order  to  lighten  this  difficulty  in  some  measure,  men  have 
resorted  to  the  conjecture  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  perhaps  used  the 
matrcs  Irctionis '  more  frequently  than  they  are  used  in  the  present 
text,  and  that,  after  the  introduction  of  vowels,  these  letters  again  dis- 
appeared. And  it  is  true  these  letters  occur  more  frequently  in  the 
unpointed  text  of  the  Talmud,  Targums,  and  Samaritans.''  Without 
stopping  to  examine  some  uncritical  arguments,  an  appeal  has  some- 

Shaphan  the  scribe.  If  the  writer  in  Chronicles  had  read  it  with  these  vowels,  he 
would  scarcely  have  interpolated  an  tlSs,  so  as  to  read,  ^CSfl  iDiS!  ']t:'0  Si^.'^l' 
and  Shaphan  brought  the  book,  as  now  it  does,  2  Ch.  xxxiv.  16. 

«  Elias  Msibensis  (apud  Mraham  Echellensis,  ad  Ebed  Jesu,  Catal.  Libr. 
Chald.  p.  178)  says,  Non  possunt  recte  legere  nisi  tanquam  divinantes,  aut 
ex  traditione.  See  Ch.  Th.  Tychsen,  1.  c.  p.  260.  Volney,  Simplification  des 
Langues  Orient,  p.  20. 

''  Mraham  Echellensis,  1.  c.  p.  227.     Jo.  Moriwus,  1.  c.  p.  529. 

'  The  three  letters  i ,  T  ,  S^ . 

^  See  Cappellus,  Arcan.  Punct.  i.  18,  19.  Jo.  Morinus,  1.  c.  Exercitat.  Bib. 
xviii.  c.  3.  Bellermann,  Handbuch  der  Bib.  Lit.  vol.  i.  p.  88,  sqq.,  and  others, 
in  Loscher^  1.  c.  p.  297,  sqq.  Morinus,  De  Ling.  Primteva,  p.  346,  sqq.,  (comp. 
Vitringa,  Obs.  Sac.  p.  73,)  and  the  refutation  in  Dupuy,  Sur  les  Voyelles  de  la 
Langue  Heb.,  in  the  Memoires  de  I'Acad.  vol.  xxxvi.  p.  239.  Michaelis,  Ver- 
mischte  Schriflen,  vol.  ii.  No.  1,  §  15 — 22.  Jahn,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  337.  Bauer, 
Crit.  sac.  p.  146. 


F.]  APPENDIX.  489 

times  been  made  to  the  niatres  lectionis  that  occur,  here  and  there, 
in  the  text,  and  it  is  maintained  they  are  the  relics  of  the  old  orthoo-- 
raphy.  But  they  occur  only  in  some  particular  manuscripts,  from 
which  they  have  found  their  way  nito  the  received  text :  they  prove 
nothing.  Some  of  them  are  more  modern  than  the  vowels,  but  they 
are  all  the  production  of  a  fluctuating  orthography."  The  later 
copyists  indulged  themselves  in  these  variations  to  a  great  extent,  as 
a  single  glance  into  Kennicott's  collection  of  various  readings  will 
show.  But  the  whole  assertion,  however  it  may  be  limited,  is  con- 
trary to  all  the  analogy  of  the  old  Shemitish  writing.  The  oldest 
Phoenician  inscriptions  and  coins  are  uncommonly  sparing  of  these 
letters,  and  omit  them  in  cases  where  the  omission  very  rarely 
occurs  in  the  Hebrew.  The  Jewish  coins  sometimes  have  the  full, 
sometimes  the  defective,  reading.  The  same  remark  is  true  of  the 
oldest  Hebrew  writings.  The  scripiio  plena  first  became  prevalent 
in  the  period  when  the  language  was  half  dead.  It  was  used  merely 
to  render  reading  more  easy.  The  orthography  of  the  Samaritans, 
the  Talmud,  the  modern  Hebrew,  and  Chaldee,  agrees  with  this 
statement.  This  very  distinct  gradation  in  the  masoretic  text  is  cer- 
tainly genuine,  for  it  is  founded  on  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
and  supported  by  analogy.  How  could  the  men  who  affixed  the 
points  at  a  later  age  permit  so  many  letters  to  be  removed  from  the 
text  as  that  hypothesis  would  make  it  appear  ?  And,  furthermore, 
how  could  we  explain  the  perpetual  diversity  between  the  Septuagint 
and  the  Hebrew  words? 


^3. 

THE    VOWELS    IN    THE    SEPTUAGINT,    JOSEPHUS,    AND    OTHERS. 

1.  We  have  in  the  Seventy  a  valuable  evidence  of  the  condition  of 
the  new  writing  at  that  period  when  the  old  Hebrew  was  completely 
extinct  as  a  living  language.  After  a  careful  examination,  it  appears 
to  me  this  version  proceeded  from  a  text  entirely  destitute  of  vowels  ; 
and  the  statement  in  the  previous  section  is  thereby  confirmed,  for  it 
is  not  probable  that  there  were  vowel  characters  which  were  yet  not 
used  or  known.* 

»  See  the  Excursus  on  the  Phoenician  Language,  No.  3. 
'  See  collections  of  these  variations,  from  all  the  biblical  books,  in  Morinus, 
De  Ling.  Primaeva,  p.  385 — 396.     CappelluSy  Crit.  sac,  ed.  Vogel-Sckarfenbergf  p. 

VOL.  I.  62 


490  APPENDIX.  [f. 

It  has  been  objected,  notwithstanding,  that  this  version  agrees  so 
often  and  so  strikingly  with  the  present  pointed  text,  that  the  agree- 
ment cannot  be  exphiined  from  the  context,  without  we  admit  tliere 
were  certain  vowel  characters  in  the  text;  and  in  particular  that  the 
words  which  occur  but  once  in  the  Bible,  and  are  distinguished  from 
other  well-known  words  solely  by  the  vowels,  are  written  in  this 
version  with  perfect  correctness,  and  this  could  not  have  been  done 
if  the  writing  character  had  not  given  them  a  hint."  But  after  ex- 
amining the  explanation  of  these  words  in  the  Seventy,  it  becomes 
clear  that  the  context  and  tradition  were  their  only  guides,  and  these 
not  rarely  forsook  them.'' 

5C0— 545.  Comp.  Jf'epler,  Philol.  Krit.  Fragmente ;  Cassel,  1783,  vol.  ii. 
p.  10,  sqq. 

"  Buxtorf,  Ue  Punct.  Orig.  p.  116,  sqq.  Pocockc,  Com.  in  Hos.  Bcrtholdt, 
p.  176. 

*  To  show  the  strength  or  weakness  of  this  argument,  the  following  collectiou 
of  explanations,  given  by  the  Seventy,  chiefly  relating  to  tlie  letter  K ,  may  be 
examined :  — 

1.  They  continually  distinguish  between  the  following  words:    is   and  ii^; 

ins,  b5ii!,b55<;  TfU  and  tiiptn,  Deut.  xxiii.  13;  ti^nn  and  Qins ,  Isa.  xiii. 
21;  'S ,  where?  and  "^St,  alas!  island;  nC^it,  a  measure,  and  nb''S5,  icherc? 
y\'!2Vi  and  "^^Jas^,  Prov.  viii.  30:  "(J^S*  and  '^>2S<,  Cant.  vii.  2;  n3^^5 ,  locust, 
and  nS'lit ,  net-icork ;  ^5H ,  ashes,  and  ^5S ,  1  Kings  xv.  38,  42 ;  nn*li{ ,  cara- 
van, and  iiW^i^ ,  po7-tion ;  iTIIK ,  offering,  and  rilBS,  &,c.  But  in  all  these 
cases,  the  context  makes  the  distinction  clear. 

2.  They  also  make  a  proper  distinction  between  words  of  similar  sound;  e.  g. 
n54 ,  adiXifo;,  and  riK  ,  fff_;^aroc;  3154 ,  JeZ/?/,  and  l^is^  ,  magician;  ES  ,  also,  but, 
and  CS4 ,  nose  ;  where  the  connection  decides  the  meaning. 

3.  But  where  the  context  is  uncertain,  or  the  translator  ignorant  and  careless, 
they  confound  words  which  ought  to  be  distinguished. 

Isa.  xvii.  11,  lJ^2!)*  ^^^^  >  "*?  7iari,Q  av-dqdjTiov,  for ''s^  35^3;  (comp.  Jer.  xvii. 
9, 16.)  Q'lbni^,  akot],  Ps.  xlv.  10,  but  axt'jvai,  in  Num.  xxiv.  6,  and  Prov.  vii.  17, 
as  if  it  were  D'^^flH ;  b'^Si,  commonly  iXaifo?,  but,  in  Lam.  i.  6,  xqIo;,  as  if  it 
were  b'^H ;  so  nb^Nt ,  commonly  tlacpog,  but  in  plural.  Cant.  i.  2,  Dlb''!!^ ,  it  is 
I'o/r?,  as  if  rilb^i^;  ^'bl^.  Gen.  xlix.  21,  ariXtxa?,  for  ilb'^S;  b^,  fu;,  as  if 
bJ5 ,  Ps.  vii.  12 ;  ipS ,  itvqo,  for  "^nj^ ,  Cant.  iv.  8 ;  ^5?!!* ,  >>«?,  for  •=\^m  ,  Ps. 
Ixxiv.  9.  They  constanUy  distinguish  nb»* ,  oath,  from  nbs ,  these,  and  ribs , 
God  ;  but  not  nbH  from  T^b^ ,  because  both  are  names  of  trees,  which  the  con- 


F.]  APPENDIX.  491 

Besides  the  context,  which,  in  many  places,  would  decide  for  them, 
the  traditionary  and  common  explanation  would  assist  them.  We  need 
only  recur  to  the  versions  of  the  Samaritan  codex,  which  certainly 
had  no  points.  There  are  many  passages  which,  at  the  first  glance, 
render  it  highly  probable  there  were  marks  in  the  text  to  indicate 
the  pronunciation;  but  the  diversity  of  the  other  versions  in  this 
respect  opposes  the  supposition 

2.  We  come  to  the  same  result  by  observing  the  method  after 
which  the  numerous  proper  names  in  the  Hebrew  are  translated  into 
the  Greek.  Sometimes  they  are  pronounced  with  vowels  very  differ- 
ent from  the  original ;  sometimes  according  to  a  different  system  of 
vocalization,  which,  departing  from  the  masoretic  custom,  is  some- 
times analogous  to  that  of  the  Arabic  or  Syriac." 

3.  The  examples  in  the  fragments  of  the  other  Greek  versions,  and 
in  Josephus,  are  of  the  same  character.  The  latter,  throughout,  be- 
trays an  unpointed  text,  for,  wherever  he  does  not  use  the  Seventy, 
but  the  Hebrew  text  itself,  he  differs  from  the  orthography  of  the 
former 

4.  But  if  an  inquirer  is  not  convinced  by  what  has  hitherto  been 
said,  and  thinks,  with  Schultens,  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  and  others, 
that  in  this  period  there  were  certain  signs  in  the  text  to  guide  the 
reader,  he  would  naturally  recur  to  a  diacritical  point.  His  opin- 
ion will  be  favored  by  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which  proceeded 
from  a  Jewish  copy  before  the  time  of  the  Seventy,  and  is  now,  at 
least,  furnished  with  this  sign,  (though  it  cannot  be  proved  that  it  had 
it  so  early,)  and  by  the  old  Syriac  character  also,  which  certainly 
is  a  descendant  of  the  square  letter.  The  matres  lectionis  in  the 
Samaritan  codex  give  the  same  result  with  those  of  the  Seventy. 

TRACES  OF  THEM  IN  THE  TARGUMS  AND  TALMUDS. 

1.  The  agreement  between  the  oldest  Targums  and  the  vowels  of  the 
present  text  is  very  striking.  We  should  be  compelled  to  conjecture 
that  the  Palestine  scholars,  at  least,  had  a  pointed  text  at  that  time,  if 


text  does  not  separate.     See  the  proof-texts  in  Trommii,  Lex.  Heb.,  at  end  of 
his  Concord,  e  LXX.,  Int. 

«  See  Hilleri  Onomast.  sac.  p.  706,  sqq.     Masch,  Bibliotheca  sac.  pt  ii.  vo). 
ii.  p.  35,  sqq. 


492  APPENDIX.  [f. 

Josephus  and  Jerome  did  not  contradict  it.  The  agreement  is  better 
explained  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  explanation  of  the  Targums  lies 
at  the  basis  of  the  later  punctuation.  Some  very  late  writers  of  Tar- 
gums may  have  had  a  pointed  text  before  their  eyes 

2.  The  statements  of  the  Talmud,  upon  this  subject,  are  still  more 
difficult  and  obscure."  It  is  certain,  and  generally  admitted,  that  it 
makes  no  actual  and  express  mention  of  the  points.*  But  silence 
respecting  a  subject  supposed  to  have  been  known,  is  not  a  convincing 
argument  that  it  was  not  known.  The  numerous  passages,  selected, 
for  the  most  part,  from  the  Gemara,  which  relate  to  this  inquiry,  may 
be  divided  into  two  classes. 

(1.)  Passages  where  the  meaning  of  clauses  in  the  Bible  is  con- 
tested ;  and  here  the  controversy  rests  on  the  different  pronunciation 
of  the  same  word;  for  example.  Cant.  i.  2,  Ti-inil ,  or  ij'iniT ;  Ex. 
xxi.  8,  iiaa,  or  '^^a:3,  &lc.'  According  to  a  rabbinical  legend,  Joab 
put  his  teacher  to  death  because  he  taught  him  to  pronounce  1ST ,  in- 
stead of  liT ,  in  Ex.  xiv.  IT.''  From  the  last  passage  it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  the  Talmudists  supposed  the  letters  were  written  entirely 
without  points  in  the  time  of  David,  and  therefore  this  is  analogous 
to  similar  controversies  which  have  arisen  respecting  the  unpointed 
Koran.  But  both,  and  especially  the  latter  controversy,  carry  us 
back  to  a  time  when  the  ambiguity  of  a  text  without  points  began  to 
be  seriously  felt,  and  when  custom  had  fixed  the  pronunciation  in 
some  difficult  places,  which  was  usually  observed  in  reading  them. 
The  phrase  n;niD?3b  tiN5  B']'i  5t'ii???lb  Dij!  rj'^,  "there  is  a  mother,  i.  e.  a 
reason  for  this  reading,  hut  it  is  itself  the  mother  of  the  3Iasora," 
seems  to  refer  to  this.  It  occurs  frequently,  and  is  diffiarently  ex- 
plained. Probably  the  jt'i|??3  designates  the  received  way  of  reading 
the  text;  the  nilD^^ ,  a  traditional  explanation  of  the  text,  which,  in 
this  case,  differs  from  the  pronunciation  of  the  word.'  In  our 
editions  of  the  Talmud,  the  text  is  without  points  in  so  many  impor- 


"  The  following  writers  contend  for  the  mention  of  vowels  in  the  Talmud : 
Buxtorf,  De  Origine  Punctorum  Vocal,  p.  76,  sqq.,  101,  sqq. ;  G.  0.  Tychsen,  in 
Repert.  vol.  iii.  p.  105,  sqq.  On  the  other  side,  see  Jo.  Morinus,  Exercit.  Bibl. 
xii.  ch.  3 — 5,  XV.  ch.  3 — 5. 

^  Buxtorf,  Tiberias,  p.  80. 

'  Mishna  Aboda  Sara,  2,  §  4.  Gem.  Kiddushin,  c.  1,  fol.  18.  Sanhedrim, 
c.  1,  fol.  4,  A.     Seta.  c.  1,  fol.  4,  B. 

i  Baba  Bathra,  c.  2,  fol.  21,  A.  B. 

*  Buxtorf,  1.  c.  p.  103.     Jo.  Morinus,  p.  456.     Tychsen,  p.  106, 


F.]  APPENDIX.  493 

tant  passages  that  they  must  be  learned  from  the  context.  However, 
we  must  suppose  a  sign,  showing  how  the  word  was  to  be  read,  was 
almost  indispensable." 

(2.)  Another  class  is  composed  of  these  passages,  where  certain 
marks  in  the  text  are  mentioned,  especially  the  Tang/nim,  (Q-i>33>t3 ,) 
the  Pesookim,  (n^it^lO'^O ,)  and  the  Semanim,^  (qi2>31D.)  The  first, 
which  afterwards  was  the  common  term  for  accents,  is  perhaps  taken 
in  the  wider  sense  of  vowel  points  and  marks  of  interpunction, 
although  its  connection  with  Pesook  seems  to  lead  solely  to  a  division 
of  the  words,  sense,  and  verses. 

The  last  is  explained  by  Raschi  as  meaning  vowel  points,  (n^)?3 ;) 
but  there  are  passages  where  it  will  not  bear  this  meaning." 

(3.)  There  is  no  trace  of  marks  for  the  vowel  in  the  oldest  critics 
upon  the  Bible,  —  who  were  nearly  contemporary  with  the  Talmud- 
ists,  —  the  authors  or  collectors  of  the  Keri  and  Kethib.  All  these 
readings  relate  solely  to  the  consonants. 


^5. 

FURTHER    TRACES     IN    ORIGEN,    JEROME,    AND    OTHERS. 

Some  express  statements  of  Jerome  relate  more  directly  than  the 
Talmud  to  the  existence  of  certain  characters  to  assist  the  reading. "^ 
The  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew  words  in  Origen's  Hexapla,  in  Je- 
rome, and  some  contemporary  authors,  is  still  very  fluctuating,  and 
analogous  to  the  pronunciation  of  the  Alexandrians,  though  some- 
what more  fixed  than  that/ 


"■  Morinus,  1.  c.  Baba  Bathra,  1.  c. :  Cum  venit  (Joab)  ante  David  dixit  el,  Quare 
sic  fecisti  ?  Respondit  ei,  Quia  scriptum  est  ']b)a3'  ^5t  tlSi  nn>2n  .  Regessit 
David,  Sed  non  legimus  ^3T.  Dixit  ei  Joab,  Docuerunt  me  legere  ^3T.  Ivit 
et  interrogavit  preceptorum  suum,  dixit  illi,  Quomodo  docuisti  me  legere  ?  Dixit 
ei,  ^iT. 

!>  Gem.  Berachoth,  fol.  62.  Nedarim,  fol.  37.  Megilla,  fol.  3,  ad  Nehem. 
viii.  8.  Hagiga,  fol.  6.  Nedarim,  fol.  53.  See  Buxtorf,  Morinus,  and  Tychsen, 
1.  c.     See  above,  §  79,  sqq. 

'  Buxtorf,  p.  76.    Morinus,  p.  447.     Tijchsen,  p.  108. 

^  Cappellus,  Arcan.  Punct.  i.  10.  Jo.  Morinus,  1.  c.  p.  463.  St.  Morinus,  p. 
404,  sqq.  On  the  other  side,  Buxtorf,  De  Punct.  Origine,  p.  143,  sqq.  G.  0. 
Tychsen,  1.  c.  p.  127.  Comp.  Dupuy,  (on  the  vovs^els  in  Jerome's  Heb.  MSS.) 
in  Eichhorn's  Repert.  vol.  ii.  p.  270.     Jahn,  Einleit.  vol.  i.  p.  340,  sqq. 

"  Montfauco7i,  Quomodo  Vet.  Int.  Hebraice  legerint,  in  Origcn,  Hexap.  vol. 


494  APPENDIX.  [f. 

1.  Jerome  knew  as  little  of  the  present  vowel  points,  and  their 
names,  as  of  any  other  technical  expression  of  Hebrew  grammar. 
He  maintains  expressly,  as  a  peculiarity  of  Hebrew  writing,  that  it  is 
rare  to  find  a  vower'  in  the  middle  of  a  word,  but  the  consonants 
were  pronounced  differently,  according  to  the  pleasure  of  the  reader, 
and  the  different  custom  of  different  provinces.  This  is  the  reason 
that  he  makes  the  frequent  remark,  that  a  word  may  mean  very  dif- 
ferent things,  as  it  is  differently  pronounced.  In  this  connection  he 
makes  use  of  the  term  accent,  (accentus,)  which  sometimes  refers  to 
the  pronunciation,  but  sometimes  it  must  mean  a  sign  in  the  text,  to 
indicate  the  pronunciation.  Perhaps  he  used  it  as  a  translation  of 
the  Talmudic  word  'u'S'd  .  Jerome's  version  agrees  with  the  present 
system  of  vowels  far  better  than  the  Seventy.' 

2.  The  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew  appellatives  in  Origen,  Je- 
rome, and  some  others,  is  analogous  to  that  of  the  Seventy,  but  it 
agrees  more  closely  with  the  present  pronunciation 

3.  If  any  one  is  willing  to  rest  the  question  on  the  fact  that  signs 
of  the  vowels  are  occasionally  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  and  Jerome, 
the  most  that  could  be  made  out  from  them  is,  that  tliree  vowel  signs 
were  early  used  in  the  Hebrew."  We  must  give  up  all  historical 
proof  of  the  fact,  sought  from  other  sources,  and  the  age  of  these 
three  marks  is  not  wholly  secured.  But  the  fact  is  remarkable,  that 
nearly  all  the  variations  of  the  old  translators  can  be  easily  explained 
on  the  supposition  that  there  was  such  a  simple  and  ambiguous  sys- 
tem of  vocalization ;  for  they  are  almost  all  but  different  gradations 
of  the  chief  vowels.  In  general,  the  whole  system  of  vocalization 
may  be  referred  back  to  these  three  chief  vowels  ;  it  only  fixed  their 
fluctuating  pronunciation ;  and  the  entire  doctrine  of  the  vowel 
changes  in  the  Hebrew  languages  relates  almost  solely  to  the  limits 


ii.  p.  397,  sqq.,  reprinted  in  Wolf,  1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  653,  sqq.  Jahn,  Gram.  Heb. 
3d  ed.  p.  443,  sqq.  On  a  passage  of  Clem.  Alex.  (Strom,  iii.  p.  529,  ed.  Potter,) 
which  some  refer  to  the  Heb.  vowels,  see  Bib.  Bremensis,  vol.  ii.  p.  147. 

»  Epist.  126,  ad  Evagrium. 

»  Com.  ad  Habak.  iii.  5.  Hos.  xiii.  3.  Ad  Titum  iii.  6.  Isa.  Ixv.  16.  Jon. 
iii.  4.  Gen.  xxxiii.  29.  See  other  passages  in  Buxtorf,  p.  147.  Jahn,  1.  c. 
Montfaucon,  Hexap. 

"  Vossii  Aristarchus,  i.  32.  Jo.  Morinus,  p.  544.  Schultens,  Inst.  Ling.  Heb. 
p.  48,  62,  sqq.  Mchaclis,  Com.  de  Syrorum  Vocal,  p.  174,  §  6,  7,  in  Comment. ; 
Gott.  1774.  Bauer  takes  the  other  side,  Crit.  sac.  p.  146.  See  Trendelenlurg, 
in  Eichhorns  Repert.  vol.  xviii.  p.  80. 


F.]  APPENDIX.  495 

of  these    three   vowels.     This   remark    was    made   loner    awo,    and 
thoroughly  carried  out." 

Others  think  only  the  diacritical  point  was  used  at  this  time,  and 
it  is  certain  the  term  accent  in  Jerome  is  not  limited  solely  to  the 
vowels.  The  analogy  of  the  Arabic  and  rabbinical  manuscripts 
confirms  the  opinion  that  at  first  only  difficult  passages  were  pointed. 

TIME    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PRESENT    SYSTEM    OF    PUNCTUA- 
TION,   AND    OBJECTIONS    TO    IT. 

1.  Without  reckoning  on  uncertain  accounts  from  the  fourth  centu- 
ry, we  find  many  certain  traces  of  the  use  of  the  present  vowels  in  the 
fifth  century.''  The  Masora,  collected,  though  not  closed,  about  this 
time,  mentions  the  chief  of  them  by  name,  and  notices  their  variations. 
The  comparison  between  the  Babylonian  and  Palestine  readings 
relates,  at  least  in  two  places,  to  Mappik  in  He ;  but  the  comparison 
which  Ben  Assher  and  Ben  Naphtali  made  (about  1034  A.  C.)  relates 
exclusively  to  the  vowels  and  marks  to  aid  the  reading."  Still  further, 
the  version  of  Saadias,  and  the  Greek  version  of  St.  Mark's  library,  pro- 
suppose  the  existence  of  a  pointed  text.  In  fine,  the  Jewish  gramma- 
rians, from  the  eleventh  century  downwards,  seem  to  have  known 
nothing  respecting  this  matter,  except  thai  the  vowels  were  formerly 
written.  Therefore  they  could  not  have  known  any  manuscripts 
which  contained  an  imperfect  punctuation,  or  which  showed  the 
origin  of  punctuation.'' 

2.  If  we  are,  from  these  facts,  to  determine  the  time  in  which  the 
present  vocalization  was  formed  and  completed,  then  more  arguments 
speak  in  favor  of  that  period  between  the  sixth  and  eighth  than  be- 
tween the  ninth  and  the  tenth  centuries."  They  may  have  been  quite 
generally  known,  for  the  first  time,  about  the  latter  period.  Between 
the  eighth  and  the  tenth  century,  the  Jewish  chroniclers  mention 

«  Eichhorn,  Bib.  vol.  viii.  p.  205 Michadis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  iv.  p.  228,  sqq. 

Ciericjw,  Qusest.  Jerome,  p.  95.     /a^w,  Heb.  Gram.  3d  ed.  p.  19.     JeroTwe,  Quaest. 
in  Gen.  ii.  23. 

*  Buxtorf,  p.  55  and  189.     Cappdlus,  Arcan.  Punct.  i.  12. 
"  Michaelis,  Or.  Bib.  vol.  iv.  p.  219. 

^  Morinus,  p.  525.  R.  Simon,  1.  c.  i.  c.  27.  St.  Morinus,  Ling.  Primcev.  p.  420. 
Eichhorn,  1.  c.     Tychsen,  Tent.  p.  133. 

*  Hottinger,  Hist.  Eccl.  N.  T.  vol.  i.  p.  421, 528. 


496  APPENDIX.  [f. 

almost  exclusively  Babylonian  scholars,  and  yet  this  masoretic  and 
grammatical  work  was  universally  ascribed  to  the  men  of  Tibe- 
rias.*^ Furthermore,  the  works  that  have  come  down  to  us  from 
these  two  centuries,  such  as  the  later  Targums,  show  that  learn- 
ing was  in  so  degraded  a  condition  that  we  cannot  place  that  un- 
dertaking in  this  age.  And,  finally,  in  an  earlier  age,  there  was  the 
same  need  of  them  as  at  a  later  day,  and  the  difficulty  of  propagating  a 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  by  tradition  became  greater  continually. 
At  the  same  time,  this  hypothesis  renders  it  easy  to  explain  the  fact  that 
the  true  origin  of  the  vowels  was  completely  unknown  to  the  Jewish 
scholars  in  that  age;  for  some  centuries,  and  those  very  dead  centu- 
ries, lay  between  the  periods.  From  these  considerations,  it  becomes 
quite  probable  that  the  vowel  points  came  into  the  schools  of  the 
critics  of  the  Bible  at  an  earlier  date -^before  they  came  into  general 
use.  Such  distinct  traditions  respecting  the  origin  of  the  vowels  as 
the  Arabians  have,  are  entirely  wanting,  for  those  which  pass  for 
such  vanish  on  examination. 

3.  Among  the  objections  which  may  be  raised  against  the  later 
origin  of  the  vowels  are  many  that  seem  not  unimportant;  yet  they 
may  be  removed  without  doing  violence  to  facts.  "It  is  scarcely 
conceivable,"  says  one,  "  that  history  should  be  silent  respecting  a 
fact  so  important  for  the  outward  form  of  the  sacred  Scriptures."  * 
But  it  is  silent  concerning  other  things  still  more  important  in  the 
history  of  Jewish  literature ;  —  on  the  formation  of  the  canon  ;  on  the 
composition  of  so  many  anonymous  writings ;  and,  besides,  the  same 
must  be  said  respecting  similar  contrivances  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
grammarians.  But  the  men  who  did  the  most  in  this  business  did 
not  boast  of  their  invention ;  it  was  rather  for  their  interest  to  avoid 
the  appearance  of  novelty,  and  to  give  their  work  the  authority  of 
age  as  soon  as  possible.  The  history  of  literature  shows  how  com- 
pletely this  agrees  with  the  spirit  of  the  Jews  and  of  that  age.  To 
this  is  to  be  added  the  interposition  of  dark  ages. 

"We  nowhere  find  any  controversy  about  this  matter,  which  we 
should  expect  among  the  Jews,  who  love  controversy."  But  the 
passages  of  the  Talmud  above  referred  to  may  certainly  be  consid- 


«  See  Prideaux,  (1.  c.,)  Fourmont,  (in  Memoires  de  la  Litterat.  vol.  xx.  p.  222, 
sqq.,)  Sender,  (Theol.  Abhand.  vol.  i.  p.  191,)  and  against  them  Houbigant,  Not. 
crit.  vol.  i.  p.  77. 

*  Buxtorf,  p.  398.    Robertson,  p.  65.    Morinus,  421. 


F.]  APPENDIX.  497 

ered  vestiges  of  the  time  when  this  subject  was  deliberated  upon. 
At  a  later  date,  we  have  no  account  of  the  critical  treatment  of  the 
text.     How  little  do  we  know  of  the  origin  of  the  Masora! 

"  The  Masorites  frequently  remark  upon  anomalous  and  rare 
punctuation.  How  could  they  do  this  if  they  were  the  authors  of 
this  punctuation?  Would  they  not  have  amended  the  anomaly,  in- 
stead of  pointing  it  out?"  But  it  is  well  known  this  change  in  the 
text  was  not  effected  all  at  the  same  time,  but  gradually.  In  the 
course  of  one  or  more  centuries,  an  invention  of  an  earlier  gramma- 
rian might  have  acquired  such  esteem,  and  have  so  much  of  super- 
stition on  its  side,  that  no  one  would  venture  to  change  it,  and  a 
mystery  might  be  sought  in  what  was  at  first  only  an  accidental 
anomaly.  The  same  took  place  with  the  greater  and  smaller  letters, 
and  the  extraordinary  points,  &lc. 

Finally,  it  is  said,  "The  Karaites,  who  separated  from  the  rabbins 
before  the  composition  of  the  Talmud,  have  the  complete  system  of 
punctuation,  which  they  would  not  have  received  from  their  oppo- 
nents if  it  were  of  recent  origin.  This  fact,  therefore,  favors  the 
high  antiquity  of  the  vowel  points."  "  But  even  if  this  sect  existed, 
there  is  certainly  ample  room  for  controversy  whether  it  existed  as 
perfectly  separated  and  completed  at  that  high  antiquity.  And  when 
the  Karaites  themselves  place  the  antiquity  of  their  sect,  and  the 
existence  of  the  vowel  points,  so  high,  it  is  only  by  reasoning,  infer- 
ence, and  pretension  to  antiquity,  and  not  as  a  fact.  But  the  fact 
that  they  make  no  scruples  to  use  even  printed  books  with  points, 
shows  that  they  did  not,  like  the  rabbins,  regard  every  unessential 
novelty  as  profane. 

4.  The  names  of  the  Hebrew  vowels,  for  the  most  part,  correspond 
in  their  etymology  to  those  of  the  Arabians,  (and  Syrians,)  and  there- 
fore it  is  probable  there  was  an  historical  connection  between  them. 
The  copiousness  of  the  former  shows,  perhaps,  they  were  later  than 
the  others.  But  the  fact  that  several  of  the  later  vowels  are  some- 
times comprised  under  the  same  name  shows,  perhaps,  that  this 
copiousness  was  of  gradual  growth 

"  Triglandus,  De  Secta  Karseorum,  p.  20.  Morinus,  1.  c.  Exercit.  vii. 
Carpzov,  1.  c.  252.  Leusden,  1.  c.  124.  Robertson,  1.  c.  p.  54.  Wolf,  Notitia 
Karaitorum,  p.  112, 152. 

VOL.  I.  63 


498  APPENDIX.  [F. 

EXAMINATION    AND    VALUE    OF    THE    MASORETIC    VOCALIZATION. 

If  the  pronunciation  of  tlie  old  Hebrew,  according  to  this  theory, 
was  continued  and  preserved  by  tradition,  for  a  considerable  time, 
before  it  was  fixed  by  characters,  the  important  question  arises, 
How  much  of  the  true  pronunciation  have  we  preserved?  Does  this 
system  restore  us  the  true  pronunciation  of  the  old  Hebrew,  at  least 
in  general,  and  upon  the  whole,  or  is  it  a  work  of  conjecture  and 
caprice  ?  Has  it  any  authority  in  particular  cases,  or  can  the  inter- 
preter forsake  and  abandon  it  at  pleasure  ?  We  think  these  questions 
may  receive  an  answer  that  is  favorable  to  the  vowel  system ;  "  and, 
in  what  follows,  shall  attempt  to  prove  it.  But  first,  we  will  examine 
the  principal  objections  to  it. 

1.  "  The  subtile  and  pedantic  character  of  the  system  proves  it  is 
the  invention  of  some  grammarians,  who,  from  v/ant  of  a  just  knowl- 
edge of  the  pronunciation,  took  that  of  the  Aramaean  as  their  stand- 
ard." This  subtilty,  which  is  almost  inconceivable  in  a  living 
language,  renders  us  certain  it  is  the  work  of  painstaking  gramma- 
rians, but  does  not  destroy  the  correctness  of  the  tradition  on  which 
the  system  rests. 

3.  •'  The  pronunciation  of  the  proper  names  in  the  Seventy 
(which,  in  part,  follows  different  principles)  is  against  it,  and  leads 
to  a  pronunciation  which  is  more  perfect,  richer  in  vowels,  and  like 
the  Arabic."  *  It  is  certain  the  two  systems  of  pronunciation  differ 
from  one  another,  like  two  dialects  ;  but  neither  is  to  be  rejected  on 
that  account.  Doubtless  we  have  two  methods  of  pronouncing  the 
Hebrew;  one  was  current  at  Alexandria,  the  other  in  Palestine. 
They  differ  like  two  dialects,  and  have  the  same  relation  to  one 
another  that  the  written  language  of  the  Arabians — which  is  full- 
toned  and  rich  in  vowels  —  has  to  their  popular  language,  which  is 


"  So  decide  Ellas  Levita,  R.  Simon,  Eichhorn,  De  Wctte,  and  Seller mann. 

''  Jo.  Morinus,  p.  509.  St.  Morimis,  p,  380,  sqq.  Is.  Vossius,  Respons.  ad 
Simon,  p.  192.  Cappellus,  Vindicise,  p.  841 .  Eichhorn,  Allg.  Bib.  vol.  vi.  p.  384. 
Greve,  Vaticinia  Nahumi  et  Habac. ;  Amst.  1793,  4to. ,  his  Ultima  Capit.  Jobi, 
pt.  i.— ii. ;  1788—1791,  4to. 

Tychsen  (Tenta-men,  p.  132,  sqq.,  153)  brings  historical  arguments  to  show  that 
there  was  an  Alexandrian  dialect  of  the  Hebrew ;  but  they  will  not  bear  exam- 
^  ination.     Masch  follows  him,  Bib.  sac.  pt.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  35. 


F.]  APPENDIX.  499 

more  like  the  Hebrew  and  Syriac.  Jerome  expressly  says  the  He- 
brew vowels  were  pronounced  differently  in  different  regions,  and 
the  greatest  difference  in  the  Arabic  coins  is  in  their  vocalization. 
Origen  also  adheres  to  the  Alexandrian  pronunciation  ;  but  the  Pales- 
tine system  of  the  Masorites  has  some  important  arguments  in  its 
favor.  The  tradition,  it  is  likely,  would  be  preserved  more  pure  in 
the  native  country;  and  again,  the  Palestine  Jews  have  a  great  supe- 
riority over  the  Greek  Jews,  in  general,  in  respect  to  the  conscien- 
tious preservation  of  traditional  matter,  and  in  all  other  respects." 

3.  "  The  present  vocalization  of  the  proper  names,  particularly 
such  as  are  not  Hebrew,  does  not  agree  with  the  pronunciation  as  we 
learn  it  from  other  sources,  and  in  part  with  certainty."''  But  who 
knows  how  often  the  form  of  proper  names  has  been  changed,  and 
even  so  far  changed  that  it  cannot  be  known,  when  they  have  been 
transferred  to  other  languages?  This  is  the  case  particularly  in 
reference  to  the  Oriental  word  "(li ,  Greece,  which  the  Arabians*  and 
Syrians,  as  well  as  our  punctators,  pronounce  Javan.  But  in  other 
cases,  as  in  the  Persian  words  UJI'i'i'l  and  m'^iiS ,  without  doubt,  the 
Hebrew  comes  nearer  the  vernacular  pronunciation.  Still  more 
confidently  we  might  appeal  to  the  original  Hebrew  words  which  the 
Greeks  received  from  the  Jews,  and  pronounced  differently  from  the 
present  punctuation."  But  who  can  assure  us  the  word  underwent 
no  alteration  in  the  mouth  of  the  Greeks  ?  Do  not  the  living  Orien- 
tal languages  differ  very  much  in  the  use  of  the  vowels?  But,  above 
all,  did  not  the  Greeks  receive  these  words  directly  from  the  Phoe- 
nicians, whose  dialect  did  not  coincide  with  the  Hebrew  in  all  minor 
respects  ? 

4.  "  In  many  places,  it  is  opposed  to  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  which,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  consonants,  adhered  rather 
to  the  Arabic ;  but  the  punctuation  follows  the  Aramaean."  ^     It  is 

"  Jo.  Morlnus,  p.  509,  sqq. 

6  E.g.  yr^,  Iu>v,  as  if  Ti"^,  Greece;  ffi'liS ,  y.vqog,  as  if  iD'^^S ;  ^1'^.'^'!?  > 
Jan-iog,  as  if  ffi'l'^'^l ;  ^d^ ,  more  correctly  in  the  LXX.  and  Coptic  version, 
riaiv,  "(Ida;  y^'^"^,  'laQSavr^g,  as  if  I'l'l^ ;  t^ffi' ,  SoXvfia,  as  if  G^izJ ,  «&c.  See 
Lexicon,  sub  voc.  See  Hyde,  Rel.  vet.  Pers.  p.  43—67,  and  Bight,  Prsef  ad 
Opp.     Lightfoot,  vol.  i.  p.  6. 

'  E.g.  riirs* ,  tiWioTTo; ;  ti'^rinri,  f/^tvo?;  y\-3'2,  xvuiyor. 

^  See  Hntchinson,  Works,  vol.  vii.  p.  256,  sqq.  Many  English  grammarians 
followed  him  ;  e.  g.  Sharp,  Parkhurst,  and  Bates;  and,  of  the  Germans,  Melung^ 
Mithridates,  vol.  i.  p.  363.     See  Wahl,  1.  c.  p.  492. 


500  APPENDIX.  [F. 

much  to  be  wished  that  some  of  the  authors  of  this  statement  had 
attempted  to  furnish  proof  of  it.  But  the  statement  of  another 
inquirer,  equally  learned,  "  that  the  punctators  borrowed  their 
punctuation  from  the  Arabic,"  "  shows  how  little  force  this  propo- 
sition has.  The  Arabic  and  the  Aramaean  are  similar,  and  must  be; 
but  they  are  not,  on  that  account,  dependent  upon  one  another. 
The  decisions  of  a  Hutchinson  and  Masclef  deserve  not  the  slightest 
respect,  who,  among  other  assertions,  declare  the  whole  conjuga- 
tion j9«e/  to  be  a  whimsey  of  the  punctators,  as  if  its  peculiar  inflections 
were  not  as  well  expressed  in  the  consonants,  for  example,  in  the 
participle. 

THE    SAME    SUBJECT    CONTINUED. 

The  positive  arguments  which  speak  in  favor  of  the  accuracy  of  the 
masoretic  vowel  system,  at  least  as  a  whole,  are  found,  on  the  one 
hand,  in  the  analogous  pronunciation  of  the  Arabic  and  Aramjean 
languages,  so  nearly  related  to  the  Hebrew,  which,  it  seems,  never 
copied  or  gave  a  preference  to  either  ;  and,  on  the  other,  in  its  con- 
sistency and  independence  in  those  passages  where  it  differs  from 
both  of  these. 

To  this  must  be  added  the  frequent  agreement  between  the  matres 
lectionis  in  the  Samaritan  and  Hebrew  manuscripts.  We  conceive 
the  sources  of  it,  in  general,  to  be  —  the  tradition  of  the  schools  in  Pal- 
estine and  Babylon;  the  Hebrew  grammar,  even  if  it  were  unknown 
as  a  science  to  both  of  them;  the  connection  of  certain  passages; 
the  traditionary  explanations  long  received  in  the  Jewish  acade- 
mies and  versions,  and  particularly  the  Targums.  We  will  now 
proceed  to  an  examination  of  these  separate  arguments. 

1.  Agreeable  to  a  pregnant  remark,  that  was  long  ago  made,  the 
Hebrew  language,  in  respect  to  its  entire  structure,  its  grammar,  and 
its  vocabulary,  stands  midway  between  the  Aramaean  and  the  Arabic. 
The  consonants  show  this  relation  between  them;  but  it  appears  more 
distinctly  in  the  vowels,  and  the  masoretic  system,  which  is  confirmed 
by  the  thorough  analogy  of  the  two  languages,  and  by  its  adhesion 
sometimes  to  one,  and  sometimes  to  the  other.  Now,  the  ground  of 
this  agreement  does  not  lie  in  the  punctator's  knowledge  of  these 

«  Jo.  Morinus,  1.  c.  p.  535. 


F.]  APPENDIX.  501 

two  languages,  or  the  comparison  he  made  of  them,  but  in  a  constant 
tradition 

2.  As,  on  the  other  hand,  every  dialect,  in  its  relation  to  other 
cognate  languages,  maintains  its  own  individuality  and  peculiarities, 
and  since  this  is  the  case  with  the  Hebrew,  in  respect  to  gram- 
matical structure,  usage,  &c.,  so  the  same  relation  shows  itself  in 
the  punctuation,  while,  as  a  whole,  and  in  particulars,  it  differs,  in 
essential  points,  from  the  punctuation  of  the  cognate  languages.  But 
it  differs  from  them  with  a  consistency  and  independence  which  can 
only  be  the  result  of  certain  knowledge,  not  of  vague  conjecture  and 
caprice.  In  respect  to  most  of  these  phenomena,  at  least  an  analogy 
may  be  pointed  out  in  the  circle  of  the  Shemitish  languages 

We  might  safely  trust  an  authority  which,  according  to  what  has 
hitherto  been  said,  has  produced  so  great  an  influence  on  the  knowl- 
edge of  this  language,  even  if  it  does  not  produce  proofs,  which,  in 
many  cases,  it  is  not  possible  to  do.  But  positive  grounds  of  con- 
firmation may  be  found  for  many  of  these  statements;  for  example, 

3.  In  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew  language  itself,  so  far  as  it  can 
be  known  from  the  consonants 

4.  In  the  matres  lectionis,  as  they  are  called,  in  particular  He- 
brew and  Samaritan  manuscripts.  Some  of  these  are  at  least  ancient. 
It  is  natural  there  should  be  traces  of  difference  and  disparity  in 
respect  to  a  matter  which  depended  merely  on  tradition  and  usage  ; 
yet  this  disagreement  does  not  penetrate  deep  into  the  system,  neither 
does  it  injure  its  consistency,  for  instances  of  this  kind  would 
naturally  precede  the  formation  of  the  system.  Even  prudent  gram- 
marians have  allowed  themselves  many  doubts  and  alterations  in  the 
case  of  grammatical  anomalies  of  a  similar  kind,  where  the  anom- 
alous grammatical  form  seems  to  stand  alone.  But  here,  too  much 
caution  cannot  be  recommended ;  for  many  of  these  anomalies  are 
supported  by  the  analogy  of  the  language  itself,  or,  at  least,  by  that 
of  the  cognate  dialects,  and  therefore  any  alterat-on  would  be  uncer- 
tain and  hazardous. 

THE    SAME    SUBJECT    CONTINUED. 

All  the  previous  remarks  on  the  vowel  system  relate  only  to  its 
effect  upon  the  language,  and  to  the  general  value  of  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  the  old  Hebrew,  which  this  system  has  fixed.  There  is 
another  question,  which  relates  to  the  choice  among  the  different 


502  APPENDIX.  [f. 

punctuations  which  the  same  word  may  receive  in  particular  places, 
where  it  is  rather  a  question  of  interpretation  than  of  grammar. 
Here  the  case  is  obviously  a  different  one.  But  the  answer  to  the 
question  depends  on  the  value  we  give  to  the  old  exegetic  tradition 
of  the  Palestine  Jews,  and  especially  that  of  the  Targums.  We  have 
stated  above,  that  we  are  constrained  to  set  a  higher  value  on  this 
than  many  critics  of  the  Bible  have  done.  An  examination  of  the 
vocalization,  in  respect  to  exegesis  and  the  division  into  words,  gives 
the  same  result;  and,  in  general,  it  may  be  maintained  that  these 
punctators  understood  the  text  better  than  many  modern  interpreters 
of  it,  who,  in  their  numerous  changes  of  the  punctuation,  often  show 
neither  sound  judgment,  nor  good  taste,  nor  exegetical  tact."  In  a 
great  many  cases,  a  somewhat  finer  knowledge  of  grammar  would 
have  saved  them  the  critical  attempt.''  But,  notwithstanding  this,  it 
is  evident  that  this  tradition  could  give  no  infallible  rule,  and  that 
here,  also,  each  question  must  be  decided  by  its  own  merits. 


<§>  10. 

THE    ACCENTS. 

The  system  of  accentuation  also  depends  on  the  age  of  the  vowel 
system,  with  which,  in  its  present  form,  it  is  intimately  connected. 

The  design  of  the  accents  is  twofold :  1.  To  point  out  the  tone- 
syllable,  and  at  the  same  time  determine  the  interpunction,  or  the 
relation  which  each  word  bears  to  the  sentence.''  2.  To  designate 
the  modulation  in  the  tone  by  which  the  Old  Testament  was  recited, 
or  intonated,  in  the  synagogues,  in  a  half-singing  manner,  like  the 
cantillating  reading  of  the  Koran  in  the   mosques."^     The  prosaic 

«  Cappellus,  Crit.  sac.  vol.  ii.  p.  937 — 956.  On  the  other  hand,  Scharfenh erg's 
Remarks.  Michaelis,  Krit.  Bemerk,  zur  alien  Schriflen  in  A.  T. ;  and,  in  oppo- 
sition thereto,  among  others,  see  Stangc,  (Anticrit.  in  Ps.,)  Reiske,  (Conject.  in 
Jobum  et  Prov.,)  Ziegler,  (Stange,  Theol.  Symmikt.  vol.  i.  p.  166,  opposes  him,) 
Dathe,  Faher,  and  Hensler,  (on  Isa.  p.  270.)  Rosenmiiller  and  De  Wette  think 
otherwise. 

*  See  Michaelis,  on  Ps.  iv.  7,  (Supplem.  ad  Lex.  Heb.  pt.  ii.  p.  551.)  Com- 
pare Schultens,  Animadv.  in  loc. 

'  So  far  they  are  called  Q'^?3lPt3 ,  sensus,  rationes.  See  J.  D.  Mtchaelis,  Ac- 
Cent.  Heb.;  Halle,  1755,  8vo.  DachseU,  Bib.  accentuata;  Leips.  1729,  4to. 
Hirt.  Syst.  Accent. ;  1752. 

"^  Here  they  are  called  ^liD'^a'j .  Michaelis,  De  Ritualibus,  S.  S.  ex  Alcorano 
illastrandis,  §  15,  in  Pott's  Sylloge  Com.  Thcol.  vol.  ii.  p.  110. 


F.]  APPENDIX.  503 

accentuation  is  different  from  the  poetic,  and  the  key  to  this  differ- 
ence is  found  in  the  Sarga,  so  called." 

[t  may  next  be  inquired,  Which  is  the  older,  the  vowel  system  or 
the  accents  ?  Many  modern  writers '  have  decided  in  favor  of  the 
latter,  and  have  wished  to  date  some  accents  as  musical  notes,  in 
the  time  of  the  old  Hebrew  temple  music,  and,  in  accordance  with 
this  hypothesis,  they  have  attempted  to  decipher  them,  and  find  out 
their  true  ancient  meaning/  In  a  similar  manner  the  Gemara 
makes  the  Levites  recite  according  to  the  accents,  even  in  the  time 
of  Nehemiah/  But  the  only  argument  adduced  to  support  this  — 
namely,  the  indispensableness  of  musical  notes,  at  a  certain  stage  in 
the  formation  of  Hebrew  music  —  has  not  the  requisite  value,  especial- 
ly when  we  consider  tliat  there  were,  at  that  time,  no  characters  for 
the  vowels,  which  were  vastly  more  necessary.  Doubtless,  following 
the  accounts  in  Chronicles,  we  conceive  the  temple  music  to  have 
been  much  more  splendid  and  perfect  than  it  was.  But  we  can  easily 
conceive  that  certain  melodies,  especially  such  as  were  inartificial  and 
not  very  regular,  might  be  preserved  and  transmitted  without  musical 
notes.  If  the  accents  were  at  first  musical  notes,  I  should  be  in- 
clined to  place  them  in  the  later  period  of  the  synagogue,  where  it 
was  the  custom  to  reduce  all  the  treasures  of  tradition  to  writing, 
and  thereby  to  fix  them. 

However,  without  wishing  to  set  myself  up  as  an  arbitrator  of  this 
controversy,  almost  boundless  as  it  is,  it  seems  to  me  the  first  design 
of  the  accents  was  to  regulate  the  intonation  and  interpunction. 
The  first  mention  of  the  accents  in  the  Talmud  and  Jerome '  have 
reference  to  this  use,  and  this  occurs  at  a  time  when  the  Greek 
accents  and  interpunction  were  also  regulated.  And  the  exaggera- 
tion made  of  this  system  of  interpunction  may  not  seem  strange 
among  grammarians  who  surpass  all  others  in  subtilty  and  minute- 
ness. Hence  arose  the  subdistinctives  (like  half  and  quarter 
commas)  and  conjunctives,  as  in  the  vowel  system  there  are  half 
vowels,  and  signs  of  the  absence  of  vowels.     The  transition  from 

"  Jablonski,  Prsef.  ad  Bib.  Heb.  §  24.     Kircher,  Musurg,  vol.  i.  lib.  ii.  ch.  5. 

b  Walton,  (1.  c.  iii.  §  45,  56,)  Paulus,  (Memorab.  vol.  vi.  p.  138,)  Bertholdt,  (p. 
179,)  and  Eickhorn.     On  the  other  side,  see  Jahn,  vol.  i.  p.  353. 

'  Speidel,  Traces  of  the  Ancient  Davidic  Music,  in  ForkeVs  Gesch.  der  Mu- 
sik,  vol.  i.  p.  156.     ^nton,  in  Paulus,  Neue  Rep.  vol.  i.  p.  160,  vol.  ii.  p.  80,  sqq. 

-i  Nedarim,  c.  4,  fol.  37,  B.  Megilla,  c.  1,  fol.  3,  on  Neh.  viii.  8. 

'  He  mentions  accentus,  Epist.  ad  Cypr.  on  Ps.  xc.  11 :  "  Inter  Hebraicum 
et  LXX.  diversa  est  distinctio."     See  Bertholdt,  p.  196. 


604  APPENDIX.  [g. 

marks  of  the  tone  and  connection  to  marks  of  declamation,  like 
recitative  notes,  was  very  easy,  on  account  of  the  singing  method  of 
reading  which  is  common  to  all  the  Orientals." 


G. 

(See   §72.) 

SPECIMENS  OF  THE  KIND  OF  DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  THE 
TWO  PAPAL  EDITIONS  OF  THE  VULGATE.* 

I.      SENTENCES    AND    WORDS    CONTAINED    IN    THE    EDITION   OF 
CLEMENT,    BUT    OMITTED    IN    THAT    OF    SIXTUS. 

Num.  XXX.  11.     Uxor  in  domo  viri,  etc.,  to  end  of  verse. 

Prov.  XXV.  24.  Melius  est  sedere  in  angulo  domatis  quam  cum 
muliere  litigiosa  et  in  domo  communi. 

Matt,  xxvii.  35.  Ut  implentur  quod  dictum  est  per  prophetam 
dicentem,  Diviserunt  sibi  vestimenta  mea,  et  super  vestem  meam 
miserunt  sortem. 

Lev.  XX.  9.   Patri  matrique  maledixit. 

Judg.  xvii.  2,  3.  Reddidit  ergo  eos  matri  suae,  quae  dixerat  ei,  Con- 
secravi  et  novi  hoc  argentum. 

1  Sam.  iv.  21.   Q-uia  capta  est  area  Dei. 

1  Kings  xii.  10.    Sic  loqueris  ad  eos. 

2  Ch.  ii.  10.    Et  vini  viginti  millia  metretas. 

II.   SENTENCES  AND  WORDS  INTERPOLATED  BY  SIXTUS,  ANl 
EXPUNGED  BY  CLEMENT. 

1  Sam.  xxiv.  8.  Vivit  Dominus  quia  nisi  Dominus  percusserit  eum, 
aut  dies  ejusque  venerit,  ut  moriatur,  aut  descendens  in  prselium  peri- 


«  The  Mohammedans  define  their  cantillation  as  a  method  of  observing  the 
pauses,  and  giving  each  letter  its  just  articulation.  Sacy,  Traite  des  Pauses  dans  la 
Lecture  de  TAlcoran,  in  his  Notices  et  Extraits  des  MSS.  de  la  Bib.  Imperiale, 

vol.  ix.  No.  3 See  the  works  on  the  antiquity  of  the  accents,  in  JVoIf, 

1.  c.  vol.  ii.  p.  492,  iv.  p.  218.  Comp.  Kacher,  Bib.  vol.  ii.  p.  122,  sqq.  Some 
names  of  accents  are  more  difficult  to  explain,  though  of  Chaldaic  form.  Elias 
Levita  confessed  (D^tD  mt2 ,  ch.  2)  that  the  meaning  of  several  was  unknown 
to  him.     See  Explanations,  in  Loscher,  1.  c.  p.  345.     Buxtorf,  Thes.  Gram.  i.  5. 

*  Extracted  from  Hodius,  1.  c.  p.  505. 


G']  APPENDIX.  505 

erit.     Propitius  mihi  sit  Dominus,  ut  non  mittam  maiium  nieain  in 
Christum  Dominum. 

1  Sam.  XXV.  6.    Ex  multis  annis  salvos  faciens  tuos  et  omnia  tua. 

2  Sam.  vi.  12.    Dixitque  David  ibo  et  reducam  arcam. 

2  Sam.  viii.  8.  De  quo  fecit  Salomo  omnia  vasa  sBrea  in  templo  et 
mare  aereo  et  columnas  altari. 

2  Sam.  xix.  10.  Et  consilium  totius  Israel  venit  ad  regem.  [I 
omit  many  other  examples.] 

III.       MANIFEST    CONTRADICTIONS    BETWEEN    THE    EDITIONS    OF 
SIXTUS    AND    CLEMENT. 

Ex.  xxiii.  18.    S.  tuas;  C.  meae. 
Num.  xxxiv.  4.    S.  ad  meridiem ;  C.  a  meridie. 
Deut.  xvii.  8.    S.  inter  lepram  et  non  lepram ;  C.  inter  lepram  et 
leprani. 

Josh.  ii.  18.    S.  signum  non  fuerit ;  C.  signum  fuerit. 

Josh.  iv.  23.    S.  Deo  nostro  ;  C.  Deo  vestro. 

Josh.  xi.  19.    S.  qua3  se  non  traderet,  etc. ;  C.  qua?  se  traderet. 

Judg.  xiv.  3.    S.  tuo  ;  C.  meo. 

1  Sam.  iv.  9.    S.  nobis;  C.  vobis. 

XX.  9.    S.  a,  me ;  C.  a  te.     [Many  others  omitted.] 

IV.       DISCREPANCY    IN    NUMBERS. 

Ex.  xxxii.  28.    S.  triginta  tria  m. ;  C.  viginti  tria  m, 
Ex.  xxiv.  5.    S.  vitulos  duodecim ;  C.  vitulos. 

2  Sam.  XV.  7.    S.  quatuor ;  C.  quadraginta. 

2  Sam.  xvi.  1.    S.  diiobus  utribus  vini;  C.  utro  vini. 
1  Kings  iv.  42.    S.  quinque  millia  ;  C.  quinque  et  mille.     [Many  in 
following  passages  omitted.] 

V.       OTHER    REMARKABLE    DIFFERENCES. 

Gen.  xxiv.  24.  S.  filia  sum  Bathuelis,  filii  Nachor,  quem  peperit 
ei  Melcha;  C.  filii  Melchas — ei  Nachor. 

Josh.  iii.  17.    S.  contra  Jordanion;  C.  contra  Jericho. 

1  Sam.  iii.  2,  3.  S.  nee  poterat  videre  lucernam  Dei  antequam 
extingueretur ;  C.  oculi  ejus  caligaverunt,  nee  poterat  videre ;  lucerna 
Dei  antequam  extingueretur. 

1  Kings  ii.  28.   S.  ad  Salomonem ;  C.  ad  Joab. 

VOL.  I.  64 


)06 


APPENDIX. 


[H. 


H. 

(See  $  85.) 
PARALLEL  PASSAGES  IN   THE   OLD  TESTAMENT." 


I.      HISTORICAL  PASSAGES  THAT   ARE   REPEATED. 


L    Genealogies. 
Gen.  V.  3 — 32.  Compare 

X.  2—4. 

X.  8,  13—18. 

X.  22—29. 

xi.  10—26. 

XXV.  2—4. 

XXV.  13— IC. 

xxxvi.  10 — 14. 

xxxvi.  20—28. 

xxxvi.  31—39. 

xxxvi.  40 — 43. 

2  Sam.  xxiii.  8—39. 
Ezra  ii.  1 — 70. 

2.    Narratives. 
(A  greater  part  of  Genesis. 

1  Sam.  xxxi.  1 — 13.  Compare 

2  Sam.  V.  1—3. 

V.  17—25. 

vi.  1— 11. 

vi.  12—16. 

vi.  17—19. 

vii.  1—29. 

viii.  1—18. 

x.  1—19. 

xi.  1—12,  30,  31. 


1  Chroii.  i.  1-^4. 

i.  5_7. 

i.  8—16. 

i.  17—23. 

i.  24—27. 

i.  32,  33. 

i.  29—31. 

i.  35—37. 

i.  38—42. 

i.  43—50. 

i.  51—54. 

xi.  10—47. 

vii.  6—23. 


—  xxi.  18—22. 

—  xxiv,  1 — 25. 


See  §  150.) 
1  Chron.  x.  1—12. 

xi.  1—3. 

xiv.  8—16. 

xiii.  5 — 14. 

XV.  25—29. 

xvi.  1—3. 

xvii.  1—27. 

xriii.  1 — 17. 

xix.  1—19. 

XX.  1—3. 

XX.  4—8. 

xxi.  1—27. 


1  Kings  iii.  5 — 13. 

vi.  1—3. 

vi.  19—28. 

vii.  15—22. 


2  Chron.  i.  7—12. 

iii.  1—4. 

iii.  8—13. 

iii.  15—17. 


"  From  Eichhorn,  §  139,  b. 


H.] 


APPENDIX. 


507 


1  Kings  vii.  23—26. 

vii.  38—51. 

viii.  1—11. 

viii.  12—50. 

viii.  62 — 66. 

ix.  1—9. 

ix.  10—23. 

ix.  26—28. 

X.  1—29. 

xii.  1—19. 

xii.  21—24. 

xiv.  21,  29—31. 

XV.  1,  2,  7,  8. 

XV.  9—15. 

XV.  16—24. 

xxii.  2—35. 

xxii.  41 — 50. 


Compare  2  Chron.  iv.  2 — 5. 

iv.  6,  V.  1. 

V.  2— 14. 

■■ vi.  1—39. 

vii.  4—10. 

vii.  11—22. 

viii.  1—10. 


2  Kings  viii.  16 — 24. 

viii.  25—29. 

xi.  1—3. 

xi.  4—40. 

xi.  21,  xii.  21. 

xiv.  1 — 6. 

xiv.  8—14,  17—20. 

xiv.  21,  22,  XV.  2—7. 

XV.  32—38. 

xvi.  1—20. 

xviii.  1 — 3. 

xviii.  13,  17—37. 

xix.  1 — 37. 


XX.  1—11. 
XX.  12—21. 


—  viii.  17,  18. 

—  ix.  1—28. 
__  X.  1—19. 

—  xi.  1—4. 

—  xii.  13—16. 

—  xiii.  1,2,21,23. 
__  xiv.  1—3,  16—18. 

—  xvi.  1—6,  11—14. 

—  xviii.  1 — 34. 

—  XX.  31 — 37,  xxi.  1. 

—  xxi.  5—10,  19,  20. 

—  xxii.  1 — 6. 

—  xxii.  10—12. 

—  xxiii.  1—21. 

—  xxiv.  1 — 27. 

—  XXV.  1 — 4. 

—  XXV.  17—28. 

—  xxvi.  1 — 4,  21- 

—  xxvii.  1 — 9. 

—  xxviii.  1 — 27. 

—  xxix.  1,  2. 


-23. 


xxi.  1—9. 
xxi.  17—26. 
xxii.  1—20. 
xxiii.  1 — 3. 
xxiii.  21—23. 
xxiii.  29,  30. 

xxiii.  30—37,  xxiv.  1—6, 


Isa.  xxxvi.  1 — 22. 

xxxvii.  1—38.  2  Ch. 

xxxii.  1 — 21. 

xxxvi  ii.  1 — 8. 

xxxix.  1—8.  2  Ch. 

xxxii.  24—33. 
2  Chron.  xxxiii.  1 — 9, 

xxxiii.  18 — 25. 

xxxiv.  1—28. 

xxxiv.  29—32. 

XXXV.  1,  17—19. 

XXXV.  20—24, 

xxxvi.  1. 


XXXVI.  2 — c 


508 


APPENDIX. 


[H. 


2  Kings  xxiv.  8 — 17. 

xxxiv.  18—20,  -) 

XXV.  1—30.      5 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22,  23. 


Compare  2  Cnron.  xxxvi.  9,  10. 

Jer.  lii.  9,  10.    2  Chron. 

xxxvi.  11 — 21. 
Ezra  i.  1—3 


II. 


LAWS,  HYMNS,  AND  ORACLES,  WHICH  ARE  REPEATED. 


Jlxod.  XX.  2—17. 

Levit.  xi.  2 — 19. 
Ps.  xviii.  2—50. 

—  cv.  1—15. 

—  xcvi.  1—13. 

—  cvi.  47,  48. 

—  xiv.  1—7. 

—  xl.  13—17. 

—  Ivii.  7—11. 

—  Ix.  5—12. 

—  Ixxx.  3,  7,  19. 

—  ex  v.  4 — 8. 
Isa.  ii.  2 — 4. 
XV.  5. 

xvi.  6,  7,  sqq. 

xxiv.  17,  18, 

lii.  7. 

Jer.  x.  25. 

xxvi.  18. 

xlix.  14—16. 

xlix.  27. 

Hab.  iii.  18,  19. 
Zeph.  ii.  14. 


Compare  Deut.  v.  6 — 21. 

xiv.  4—18. 

2  Sam.  xvii.  1 — 54. 
1  Chron.  xvi.  8—22. 

xvi.  23—33. 

xvi.  35,  36. 

Ps.  liii.  1—6. 

—  Ixx.  1—5. 
cviii.  1 — 5. 

—  cviii.  6 — 13, 

—  cvii.  8,  15,21,31. 

—  cxxxv.  15 — 18. 
Mich.  iv.  1 — 3. 
Jer.  xlviii.  5. 

xlviii.  29—31. 

xlviii.  43,  44. 

Nah.  i.  15. 
Ps.  Ixxix.  6,  7. 
Micah  iii.  12. 
Ob.  i.  4. 
Amos  i.  4. 
Ps.  xviii.  33. 
Isa.  xlvii.  8. 


III.      THOUGHTS, 

Num.  xxiv.  3,  4. 

xxiv.  9. 

Isa.  V.  25. 

X.  6,  7. 

xviii.  2. 

XXXV.  10. 

Jer.  ii.  28. 
' —  vii.  30,  31. 


SENTENCES,  PROVERBS, 
REPEATED. 


ETC.,  THAT  ARE 


Compare  Num.  xxiv.  15,  16. 

Gen.  xlix.  9,  xxvii.  29. 
Isa.  ix.  12,  17,  21,  X.  4. 

Ixv.  25. 

xviii.  7. 

Ii.  11. 

Jer.  xi.  13. 
xxii.  34,  35. 


>•] 


APPENDIX. 


509 


Jer.  vii.  33. 

vii.  34. 

XV.  2. 

XV.  13,  14. 

xxi.  19,  20. 

xxiii.  5,  6. 

xxxiii.  7,  8. 

xxix.  5. 

xxx.  10,  11. 

xlviii.  40,  41. 

xlix.  19,  21. 

Ezek.  i.  15—21. 

iii.  17—19. 

xi.  18—20. 

xviii.  25. 

Hab.  ii.  8. 
Zach.  iv.  5. 
Prov.  viii.  8. 

XX.  16. 

xxi.  9. 

xxii.  3. 


Compare  Jer.  xvi.  4,  xix.  7,  xxxiv.  20. 

xvi.  9,  XXV.  10. 

xliii.  11. 

xvii.  3,  4. 

xxxviii.  2,  3. 

xxxiii.  15,  16. 

xvi.  14,  15. 

xxix.  28. 

xlvi.  27,  28. 

xlix.  22. 

1.  44—46. 

Ezek.  X.  8—17. 

xxxiii.  7 — 9. 

xxxvi.  25— 28. 

xviii.  29,  xxxiii.  17,  20. 

Hab.  ii.  27. 
Zach.  iv.  13. 
Prov.  XX.  22. 

xxvii.  13. 

XXV.  24. 

xxvii.  12. 


I. 

(See  §  86.) 

THE  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH." 

<^1. 

Among  the  ancient  documents  commonly  cited  in  judging  ot,  or 
amending,  the  present  Hebrew  text,  there  is  scarce  any  which  has 
exercised  the  minds  of  critics  more  than  the  Samaritan  copy  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  opinions  of  learned  men  have  been  widely  differ- 
ent, not  only  in  respect  to  its  age,  but  also  in  respect  to  its  character 
and  critical  authority.  Some,  and  in  particular  philologists  of  the 
Catholic  church,  have  far  preferred  it  to  the  masoretic  text;  others 
have  deemed  it  a  point  of  their  religion  not  to  depart  a  finger's 
breadth  from  the  received  text  of  the  church.     While  the  controversy 


"  Translated  from  the  Latin  treatise  of  Gesenius,  entitled  De  Fentat.  Sam. 
Origine  Indole  et  Auctoritate,  Commentatio  Philologico-Critica. 


510  APPENDIX.  [l. 

was  recent,  it  was  carried  on  with  no  small  ardor,  and,  as  it  usually 
happens,  faults  were  committed  on  both  sides.  When  the  more  intel- 
ligent critics  perceived  this,  as  it  was  easy  to  do,  the  greater  part  of 
them  adopted  a  middle  course,  namely,  the  opinion  that  the  authority 
of  the  two  was  nearly  equal  —  that  each  had  its  own  excellences  and 
defects 

^^- 

ORIGIN    AND    ANTIQUITY    OF    THE    SAMARITAN    CODEX. 

At  what  time  did  the  Samaritans  receive  the  Pentateuch,  and  from 
whence?  This  is  a  very  important  question,  in  the  solution  of 
which  the  critics  of  our  times  have  embraced  various  opinions.  It 
is  our  design  to  examine  the  most  remarkable  of  these,  and  to  give 
our  own  opinion  in  this  matter. 

Those  critics  who  assign  the  highest  antiquity  to  this  codex  main- 
tain that  among  the  citizens  of  the  ten  tribes,  before  the  time  of 
Jeroboam,  there  were  copies  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  they  think 
then  existed  in  its  present  form.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  Jo.  Morinus, 
Keiinicott,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  and  others,  to  whom  Bertholdt 
has  recently  added  himself.  Their  arguments  may  be  comprised 
under  these  four  heads:  — 

I.  "  After  the  institution  of  the  worship  of  the  calf,  so  violent  a 
hatred  arose,  between  the  two  people,  on  account  of  the  disagree- 
ment in  their  sacred  rites,  that  no  one  will  suppose  copies,  after  that 
time,  could  pass  from  one  kingdom  to  the  other."  Vater  and  De 
Wette"  have  much  weakened  the  force  of  this  argument,  showing,  by 
many  examples,  that  this  disagreement  in  sacred  affairs  never  de- 
stroyed all  connection  between  the  worshippers  of  God  in  the  two 
kingdoms,  and  that  there  was  no  violent  hatred  between  them  before 
the  building  of  the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim;  and  who  can  doubt 
that  the  Jewish  prophets,  who  very  often  taught,  in  the  kingdom  of 
Samaria,  might  have  communicated  the  Law,  if  it  were  then  written, 
to  the  pious  worshippers  of  God  in  that  region  ?  Bertholdt  has  re- 
cently made  use  of  this  argument,  a  little  altered,  but  with  what 
success  the  reader  must  judge.*     He  says,  "  Since  the  Pentateuch 

«  Vater,  Com.  in  Pent.  vol.  iii.  p.  626.  De  JVette,  Beitrage,  vol.  i.  p.  188.  See 
the  remarks  of  Paulus,  on  the  origin  and  increase  of  this  Iiatred,  Com.  ober 
d.  N.  T.  vol.  iv.  p.  227. 

6  Einleit.  p.  236,  817,  864. 


I.]  APPENDIX.  311 

not  only  contains  ritual,  but  civil  laws,  the  citizens  of  the  Samaritan 
kingdom,  burning  with  hatred  against  the  parent  state,  would  never 
allow  themselves  to  receive  a  civil  code  from  that  kingdom,  which 
would  seem  to  be  voluntarily  surrendering  to  the  ancestral  state."  It 
suffices  us  to  have  stated  this.  It  is  indeed  evident that  conquer- 
ors, amongst  other  counsels  they  are  wont  to  devise  for  extinguishing 
the  spirit  of  a  conquered  people,  make  use  of  this,  namely,  to  force  their 
own  and  new  laws  upon  the  province,  in  place  of  the  old  institutions 
of  the  country.  Nor  is  it  to  be  denied  that  every  people,  solicitous 
for  its  liberty,  does,  with  justice,  adhere  pertinaciously  to  its  ancient 
institutions,  but  assiduously  avoids  all  new  ones,  especially  such  as 
are  brought  by  a  people  desirous  of  ruling  them.  This  would  be  the 
case  in  the  present  instance,  if  the  question  was  about  imposing  on 
the  Israelites  a  civil  code,  proceeding  from  a  Jewish  code,  different 
from  the  sacred  Laws  of  Moses.  But  the  Samaritans,  no  less  than  the 
Jews,  acknowledged  Moses  as  their  lawgiver,  and  observed  his  laws 
and  institutions,  whether  written  or  oral.  They  dissented  in  a  few 
things,  particularly  in  admitting  the  worship  of  the  calf,  and  priests 
who  were  not  of  Levitical  descent.  Now,  admitting,  as  many  do,* 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  gradually  collected  from  various  fragments 
in  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  a  little  after  the  time  of  Rehoboam,  —  in 
receiving  that  code,  the  Israelites  did  not  receive  new  laws,  but  laws 
long  known  and  kept,  though  then,  for  the  first  time,  perfectly  col- 
lected and  arranged  together.  Then  it  is  evident  that  this  codex 
may  have  been  issued  and  promulgated  among  certain  learned  and 
pious  Israelites,  though  not  publicly. 

II.  "  They  think  it  can  only  be  explained  by  this  hypothesis  why 
the  Samaritans  acknowledge  only  the  Pentateuch  ;  for,  doubtless,  they 
would  likewise  acknowledge  the  other  books  if  they  had  received  this 
code  from  the  Jews  at  any  late  period."  If  our  statement  be  true, 
—  and  we  will,  by  and  by,  demonstrate  it,  —  that  the  Samaritans,  some 
centuries  after  the  exile,  when  certainly  the  greatest  part  of  the 
sacred  books  was  extant,  received  the  Pentateuch,  with  the  worship 
on  Mount  Gerizim,  suitable  reasons  will  not  be  wanting  why  they 
should  abstain  from  receiving  the  other  books ;  and  in  the  history  of 
religion,  examples  are  not  rare  of  sects,  who  acknowledge  some  por- 
tion of  the  sacred  documents,  and  reject  others  equally  well  known 
to  them.  For  this,  indeed,  was  the  heresy  of  the  Samaritans,  that  they 
not  only  completely  revolted  from  the  worship  at  Jerusalem,  but  like- 

<•  PauluLSy  1.  c.  230,  sqq. 


512  APPENDIX.  [l. 

wise  rejected  the  prophets  and  other  men  more  recent  than  Moses 
and  Joshua,  who  were  held  in  high  esteem  among  the  other  Jews  — 
for  example,  David  and  Solomon.  These  they  rejected  as  not  in- 
spired with  a  divine  spirit,  and  even  ignominiously  traduced  them." 
Since  these  things  were  so,  scarcely  will  it  be  expected  that  our 
heresy  should  acknowledge  the  historical  books  or  the  Psalms,  almost 
every  page  of  which  abounds  with  praises  of  Jerusalem,  —  as  the  seat 
of  worship,  —  of  David,  and  the  Prophets.  I  shall  pass  over  the  Proph- 
ets and  Solomon,  whom  they  accuse  of  almost  overturning  the  Law, 
To  these  is  to  be  added  the  singular  sanctity  of  the  Pentateuch,  the 
authority  of  which  is  much  greater  than  that  of  the  other  books. 
This  argument  alone,  perhaps,  is  sufficient  to  decide  the  question. 

III.  They  say,  "  It  is  not  possible  that  the  Samaritans,  after  the 
exile,  should  desire  to  erect  a  temple  in  common  with  the  men  of  Jeru- 
salem, unless  they  had  had  the  Pentateuch."     But  so  far  is  this  from 

the  truth,  that  I  think the  opposite  opinion  might  much  better 

be  drawn  from  this.  I  cite  the  words  of  De  Wette,'  who  thus  speaks 
of  the  matter  :  "  From  this  very  desire  of  associating  with  the  Jews 
in  the  same  religious  rites,  it  is  shown  that  the  Samaritans  had  no 
fixed  and  legitimate  worship,  or  priests  invested  with  any  authority. 
But,  as  it  is  very  apparent  from  2  Kings  xvii.,  they  seem  to  have 
fluctuated,  in  their  form  of  worship,  between  the  rites  of  the  Jews 
and  pagans,  which  could  not  have  been  the  case  if  they  had  made 
use  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  had  adapted  the  form  of  their  worship 

to  it.     A  people  already  in  possession  of  a  certain  form  of 

rites,  is  not  so  ready  to  take  up  any  other  form.  But  the  Samari- 
tans, desiring  to  share  the  worship  at  Jerusalem  with  the  Jews,  forsook 
their  own  peculiar  form  of  religion  which  they  had  previously  ad- 
hered to." 

IV.  "  Finally,  they  think  the  difference  of  the  sacred  books  of  the 
two  nations  is  best  explained  in  this  manner :  they  say  the  Samari- 
tans preserved  the  Law  in  the  same  characters  their  ancestors  had 
used."" 

This  is  a  very  feeble  argument,  and  for  the  most  part  not  expressed 
with  sufficient  accuracy  ;  for  the  hypothesis  that  the  writing  charac- 

*  Photius,  Cod.  230.  Paulus,  Rep.  vol.  i.  p.  136,  sq.  Hottinger,  Exercitatt. 
Antimorin,  p.  23.  Tertullian,  Adv.  Hep.  c.  45.  Eichhorii,  Rep.  vol.  xvi.  p.  168. 
De  Sacy,  Mem.  sur  I'Etat  des  Samaritains,  c.  v. 

*  Beitrage,  vol.  i.  p.  234. 

'  Morinus,  Houbigant,  Bertholdt,  1.  c.  473,  816.  Kelle,  Wurdigung  d.  Mosa- 
ischen  Schriften,  vol.  i.  p.  64.     Eickhorn,  §  383. 


I.]  APPENDIX.  .513 

ter  was  not  changed  by  Ezra,  if  it  were  the  true  one,  does  not  affirm 
that  the  present  Samaritan  character  was  in  use  before  the  exile,  but 
another  like  the  Phoenician,  and,  indeed,  the  same  that  now  appears 
on  the  Jewish  coins.  What  forbids  our  believing  that,  the  Pentateucii 
was  transcribed  from  the  square  letters  into  the  Samaritan  characters  ? 
This  fact,  in  itself  not  improbable,  is  illustrated  by  the  present  practice 
of  the  Samaritans,  who  are  so  tenacious  of  their  writing  characters, 
that  they  use  their  own  letters  even  when  they  write  in  the  Arabic 
language,  from  which,  however,  no  intelligent  man  will  readily  infer 
that  the  Samaritans,  in  this,  have  imitated  the  most  ancient  manner 
of  writing  Arabic. 

After  so  much  has  been  said,  we  think  it  may  be  taken  for  granted 
that,  before  the  exile,  the  Pentateuch  might  pass  over  from  the  Jews 
to  the  Samaritans,  if  it  had  been  extant  among  the  Jews  in  its  pres- 
ent form ;  but  so  far  are  we  from  thinking  this  actually  took  place, 
that,  on  the  contrary,  there  are  good  arguments  which  persuade  us 
that  the  present  form  of  the  Pentateuch  was  not  known,  either  to  the 
Samaritans  or  the  Jews  themselves,  in  the  time  of  Jeroboam  and  the 
division  of  the  kingdom.  In  the  first  place,  the  learned  Paulus  "  has 
fully  proved  the  former  [that  it  was  not  known  among  the  Samaritans] 
from  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  :  for,  admitting  that,  in  the 
time  of  Jeroboam,  copies  of  the  present  Pentateuch  were  current  among 
the  inhabitants  of  that  kingdom,  how  could  it  happen  that  the  new 
king,  annulling  the  Levitical  priesthood,  should  transfer  the  adminis- 
tration of  religious  rites,  which  were  limited  to  one  place  by  the  Law 
in  Deuteronomy,  into  many  places,  and  should  establish  a  religious 
worship  entirely  different  from  that  of  the  Law  ?  Would  not  the 
Levites  be  greatly  afflicted  by  the  loss  of  their  privileges,  appeal  to  the 
sacred  code,  and  accuse  the  king  of  impiously  overturning  the  laws? 

Again  :  in  my  opinion,  it  finds  a  very  powerful  support  in  the 
present  text  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  for  the  Pentateuch,  as  it  is  now 
e.xtant,  contains,  though  in  no  great  number,  certain  marks  of  the 
age  commonly  called  that  of  the  Prophets,  and  likewise  of  the  Cap- 
tivity. Now,  all  of  these  passages  are  found  in  the  Samaritan  copy, 
as  well  as  in  the  Jewish ;  but  it  is  universally  acknowledged  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  reduced  to  its  present  form  by  the  Jews,  and  not 
by  the  Samaritans ;  and  hence  it  easily  follows  that  this  book  might 
pass  over  to  the  Samaritans   after  these  latest  fragments  were  united 

"^  L.  c.  See  also  Hasse,  Aussichten  zu  kQntigen  Auf  klarungen  zur  A.  T, ; 
Jena,  1785,  p.  11,12. 

VOL.  I.  65 


514  APPENDIX.  [r, 

together,  or,  rather,  after  our  codex  was  brought  into  its  present  form. 
But  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  Samaritans,  after  the  age  of  Ma- 
nasseh  perhaps,  either  finished  or  interpolated  their  own  Pentateuch 
(which,  it  may  be,  existed  among  them  in  a  more  imperfect  form) 
from  the  Jewish. 

Since  the  vestiges  of  an  age  more  recent  than  that  of  Moses  have 
been  collected  from  these  books,  and  judged  of  by  others,"  it  is  suf- 
ficient to  mention  those  passages  which  seem  to  demand  a  writer 
later  than  the  time  of  Solomon.  From  the  four  books  older  than 
Deuteronomy,  a  few  passages  may  here  be  cited,  no  one  of  which  is 
earlier  than  the  time  of  the  prophets.'' 

1.  The  following  are  the  most  remarkable:  Gen.  xlix.  We  think 
t  will  be  confessed,  in  our  times,  that  this  prediction  has  been  adjusted 
by  some  poet  later  than  Jacob  or  Moses,  so  as  to  describe  the  rank  of 
the  tribes,  in  condition  and  lot.  The  remarkable  praises  bestowed  in 
this  song  upon  Judah  and  Joseph  (8 — 11,  21 — 26,)  who  are  placed  far 
before  the  other  tribes,  clearly  betray  an  age,  in  which,  besides  Judah, 
the  royal  tribe,  the  Ephraimites  began  to  be  a  tribe  of  great  and  royal 
authority  in  the  nation ;  that  is,  the  times  of  the  division  of  the  kingdom. 
To  this  is  to  be  added  another  prediction  of  Jacob,  respecting  Ephraim 
and  3Ianasseh,  (who  was  formerly  far  the  most  powerful  —  xlviii.  8, 
sqq.,)  which,  indeed,  we  scarcely  doubt  to  refer  to  the  same  age." 

2.  The  remarks  in  Exod.  xv.  13,  17,  on  the  mount  of  possession, 
the  sacred  habitation,  and  the  sanctuary,  show  that  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem  was  then  built. 

3.  In  Levit.  xxvi.  the  dispersion  of  the  people  is  threatened  in 
almost  the  same  words  which  the  prophets  were  wont  to  use,  who 
saw  the  approach  of  the  captivity  under  the  kings  of  Assyria,  or  even 
lived  when  it  took  place. 

4.  In  Num.  xxiv.  22,  under  the  name  o(  Assyria,  mention  is  made 
of  tlie  Babylonian  empire,  or  rather  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  leading  the 
Kenites  into  captivity  in  his  expedition  to  .(Egypt. "* 

The  book  of  Deuteronomy is  of  still  greater  importance  in  this 

inquiry;  for  whole  chapters  of  it  —  whether  you  regard  the  hortatory 
and  rhetorical  style  of  speaking,  or  the  matter  of  the  book,  and  the 
very  usus  loquendi  —  breathe  the  spirit  of  the  prophets.  It  is  sufficient 
to  appeal  to  the  song  of  Moses,  (chap,  xxxii.)*     Besides,  there  is  a 

»  Paulus,  iv.  230.     See  Hasse,  Aussichten,  ub.  A.  T. 
*  Voter,  I.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  631.     Bmier,  Einleit.  §  249—251. 
'  De  Wette,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  265.        ^  Vater,  1.  c.  vol.  iii.  p.  639.       '  De  Wette,  1.  c. 


I.]  APPENDIX.  515 

more  frequent  mention  of  the  dispersion  of  the  people,  (iv.  27,  sq., 
xxviii.  25,  36,  sq.  :)  the  law  respecting  prophets  (xiii.  1,  xviii.  20) 
could  scarcely  be  given,  unless  the  people  had  often  been  deceived  by 
the  false  teachers  of  whom  the  prophets  complain.  Moreover,  the 
fondness  for  Levitical  institutions,  to  which  almost  every  page  refers, 
points  clearly  to  the  times  in  which  the  authority  of  the  Levites 
began  to  increase,  (while  the  piety  and  freedom  of  the  people  had 
hitherto  remained  inviolate;)  that  is,  to  the  times  of  the  exile. 

That  we  may  not  repeat  what  has  been  said  by  others,  we  will 
only  add  one  passage,  taken  from  the  blessings  of  Moses,  —  xxxiii., 
composed  not  without  regard  to  the  prediction  of  Jacob,  —  which  con- 
tains an  evident  indication  of  the  time,  and  betrays  a  later  author, 
who  had  lived  in  the  exile.  The  reader  will  perceive  in  what  man- 
ner the  tribes  o{  Judah  and  Levi  are  treated  in  this  prophecy.  Judnh 
is  not  praised,  as  before,  for  his  virtue,  power,  wealth,  and  plenty.  A 
few  words  are  used  in  speaking  of  him,  and  prayers  are  poured  out 
for  him,  as  one  broken  and  a  captive. 

Verse  7.     "Lord,  hear  the  voice  of  Judali, 

And  restore  [or  bring]  him  to  his  people. 
Let  his  hands  be  sufficient  for  him, 
And  be  a  help  against  his  enemies." 

He  dwells  longer  upon  Levi,  (8 — 11.)  He  passes  in  silence  over 
the  curse  formerly  denounced  upon  him,  (Gen.  xlix.  7,)  and  cele- 
brates him  with  the  highest  praises.  He  exalts  his  piety  and  merits 
before  God  and  the  people  of  Israel.  I  can  scarcely  persuade  myself 
that  one  would  have  written  in  this  manner,  in  any  other  time  than 
that  when  the  captivity  was  near  at  hand,  or  had  actually  taken  place  ; 
and  I  cannot  fail  to  refer  the  other  parts  of  Deuteronomy,  also,  to 
the  same  epoch.  For  at  what  period  does  history  represent  Judah 
miserable,  and  oppressed  with  enemies,  while  the  Levites  are  flourish- 
ing in  so  great  power  among  the  people,  except  when  both  tribes 
were  in  exile? 

It  will  be  sufficiently  clear,  from  what  has  already  been  said,  why 
I  cannot  agree  with  those  who  think  our  Pentateuch  passed  over  to 
the  Samaritans  before  the  time  of  the  exile. 

But  now,  if  the  Pentateuch  contained  no  passages  which  must  have 
had  a  later  origin  than  the  times  of  the  exile,  what  prevents  our  sup- 
posing that  the  Mosaic  books  were  reduced  to  their  present  form 
and  passed  over  to  the  Samaritans  a  little  after  the  end  of  the  exile? 
I  willingly  grant  that  passages  in  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  which  make 


516  APPENDIX.  [l. 

frequent  mention  of  the  written  Law,  demand  the  first  statement ;  but 
the  hist  is  less  probable  for  these  reasons  :  First,  the  time  in  which 
the  Samaritans,  highly  ofl'ended  at  the  repulse  they  had  received 
from  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  began  to  calumniate  and  vex 
them,  can  scarcely  be  deemed  a  proper  one  for  receiving  a  law  from 
them.  Secondly,  from  the  history  of  Manasseh,  a  Jewish  priest,  who 
established  the  Babylonian  worship  at  Gerizim,  —  nearly  two  centuries 
after  the  exile,  —  it  appears  that,  after  this  time,  the  Samaritans  were 
destitute  of  Levitical  priests,  and  a  regular  form  of  worship,  conform- 
able to  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch. 

We  have  now  come  upon  a  period  of  time  which  is  very  important 
to  our  cause,  namely,  to  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  heresy,  and  the 
worship  at  Gerizim.  But  it  would  be  foreign  to  our  purpose  to  delay 
long  upon  it.  As  Josephus  says,  during  the  reign  of  Darius  Codo- 
mannus,"  Manasseh,  the  brother  of  the  high  priest  at  Jerusalem, 
married  the  daughter  of  Sanballat,  the  satrap  of  the  Samaritans.  His 
brother,  and  the  other  priests,  disapproved  of  this  marriage,  and 
threatened  to  degrade  him  from  the  priesthood,  unless  he  repudiated 
his  wife ;  he  then  went  to  his  father-in-law,  and  said  he  loved  his 
wife,  but  was  unwilling  to  be  deprived  of  the  priesthood  on  her  ac- 
count. His  father-in-law  replied  that  he  should  not  only  retain  his 
priesthood,  but  be  made  high  priest,  if  he  would  retain  his  wife ;  for 
he  would  undertake  to  erect  a  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  like  that 
at  Jerusalem,  and  establish  the  worship  of  God  at  Samaria.  Enticed 
by  this  hope,  Manasseh  adhered  to  his  father-in-law,  and  was  soon 
joined  by  a  considerable  number  of  priests  and  Jews,  who  were  en- 
tangled in  similar  marriages,  and  all  went  over  to  the  side  of  San- 
ballat, and  received  from  him  liberal  grants  of  money  and  lands.  A 
temple  was  erected  by  the  permission  of  Alexander.  And  here  is  the 
origin  of  that  heresy  which  has  ever  since  been  most  thoroughly  de- 
testable to  the  Jews. 

An  appearance  of  truth  seems  to  favor  the  opinion  of  such  as  make 
the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Samaritan  heresy 
identical,  and  suppose  that  Manasseh  and  his  companions,  who  estab- 
lished the  Jewish  worship  among  the  Samaritans,  brought  this  civil 
and  ritual  code  with  them,  and  communicated  it  to  this  nation.* 
They  who  oppose  this  opinion  draw  their  arguments  from  the  silence 


"  Josephus,  Ant.  xi.  7,  §  2,  8 ;   §  2,  4,  6. 

''  Pridcaux,  1.  g.  vol.  i.  p.  414.     Pauliis,  Mem.  vol.  vii.  p.  21.     Com.  vol.  iii. 
p.  232.     De  Wette,  1.  c.  vol.  i.  p.  214.     Archaol.  §  46,  sqq. 


I.]  APPENDIX.  517 

of  Josephus,  and  from  Exod.  xxxiv.  16,  and  Deut.  vii.  3.  They  say 
it  is  not  credible  that  Manasseh  would  give  to  the  Samaritans  a  code 
two  passages  of  which  very  clearly  condemned  his  marriage  with  a 
foreign  woman.  But  it  ought  to  seem  wonderful  that  any  thing 
should  be  gathered  from  the  silence  of  Josephus,  for  it  is  well  known 
that  sacerdotal  men  had  the  code  of  Moses,  and  made  use  of  it  in 
establishing  the  new  rites  ;  nor  is  this  a  matter  of  such  great  im- 
portance that  a  writer  should  speak  of  it  in  so  concise  a  narrative. 

The  other  argument  seems  to  be  of  more  value.  But  it  is  natural  to 
expect  the  descendants  of  priests  —  who,  shortly  after,  we  find,  made 
use  of  such  violent  means,  not  only  of  interpreting,  but  even  of  alter- 
ing, the  law,  in  favor  of  the  new  worship"  —  would  be  ready  to  avail  ^ 
themselves  of  any  shadow  of  excuse,  if  any  one  should  dare  attack 
their  pontiff  in  this  name.  Besides,  the  readers  will  remember  that 
the  priests,  though  the  sole  guardians  and  interpreters  of  the  Law, 
were  not  much  to  be  feared  by  the  laity. 

But,  admitting  it  were  true,  as  the  adversaries  of  this  hypothesis  so 
earnestly  maintain,  that  the  Samaritans  had  the  Pentateuch  before 
the  time  of  Manasseh, —  they  gain  nothing  by  it;  for  if  so  great 
authority,  in  this  matter,  is  to  be  allowed  those  two  passages,  they 
would  rather  oppose  the  reception  of  it  by  Manasseh  and  his  com- 
panions, if  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  had  been  long  known  and  used 
among  the  Samaritans.  But,  on  the  contrary,  our  opinion  receives 
some  support  from  the  corruptions  which  we  see  were  made,  soon  * 
after,  to  favor  the  new  worship ;  for  this  could  much  easier  be  done 
in  a  code  just  introduced,  than  in  a  sacred  book,  long  and  elsewhere 
known  by  the  Samaritans.  But  we  wish  merely  to  say  that  scarcely 
any  other  period  can  be  named,  which  is  more  suitable  for  the  origin 
of  the  Samaritan  codex,  than  that  which  we  have  designated ;  and 
since,  in  a  matter  destitute  of  historical  evidence,  we  must  fly  to  the 
probability  of  conjecture,  we  think  this  is  preferable  to  all  others ; 
and  certainly  the  circumstances  of  the  case  require  that  the  origin 
of  our  codex  should  be  referred  to  that  time  which  elapsed  between 
the  end  of  the  exile  and  the  erection  of  the  temple  on  Gerizim. 

«  Referring  to  the  corruption  of  Deut.  xxvii.  4. 


END    OF    VOL.    I. 


Date  Due 


mmaimm  iWBWPiBr^' 


j^  i"'y?^yf' 


II"   ^ 


IP* 


BS1174.D513V.1 

A  critical  and  historical  introduction 

Princeton  Tiieological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  00115  9724 


